Main Menu

487 Responses to The occasional open thread: 2012 election edition

  1. avatar
    bernadineayers January 3, 2012 at 8:20 pm #

    rachel maddow just announced that the iowa cuacus was too early to call !!!

  2. avatar
    JPotter January 3, 2012 at 8:33 pm #

    bernadineayers:
    rachel maddow just announced that the iowa cuacus was too early to call !!!

    It’s only 7:30pm. Be patient. It’s film, not digital.

  3. avatar
    Arthur January 3, 2012 at 8:38 pm #

    And Bernadine, you are a very mean speller.

    bernadineayers: you are wrong colonal sanders…. you are also very mean.

    I hesitated to say anything, but using “colonal” for “Colonel” — ye gods ! (And yes, a military title should be capitalized when it precedes a name, even if it’s an honorific).

  4. avatar
    bernadineayers January 3, 2012 at 8:48 pm #

    G:
    YEP.That is all this ever was…

    G who’s gonna win tonight ?? in order please…

  5. avatar
    bernadineayers January 3, 2012 at 8:55 pm #

    anyone willing to post a guess ?? rank them ??

    what happened with holmes ? he represents democrats.

  6. avatar
    bernadineayers January 3, 2012 at 8:57 pm #

    Arthur:
    And Bernadine, you are a very mean speller.

    I hesitated to say anything, but using “colonal” for “Colonel” — ye gods ! (And yes, a military title should be capitalized when it precedes a name, even if it’s an honorific).

    being a mean speller is better than being a mean person.

  7. avatar
    bernadineayers January 3, 2012 at 9:00 pm #

    bernadineayers: being a mean speller is better than being a mean person.

    frank… lol

  8. avatar
    G January 3, 2012 at 9:03 pm #

    I can only fairly give my original set of predictions, which I first issued approx 4 days ago and have stuck with through today. You’ll find them posted numerous places on this site, but I’m happy to restate them again.

    Remember, this is only an educated guess, based on trying to study all the relevant factors for this caucus dynamic and giving heavier weight to the campaign’s reported GOTV & organizational ground game than just poll trending dynamics.


    1st – Ron Paul
    2nd – Rick Santorum
    3rd – Mitt Romney
    4th – Rick Perry
    5th – Newt Gingrich
    6th – Michele Bachmann

    So far, only 4% of the votes are reported. So far, results are being reported as a fairly tight 3-way race between Paul, Santorum and Romney for 1st place.

    In these early periods, expect the totals and who is in the lead to fluctuate quite a bit, as there are 1774 precincts that have to report and various districts will heavily favor one candidate over another, so we probably have to wait until we’ve gotten at least 40% of the vote in to see where things are trending. If the margins of difference are close, expect it to remain too close to call for several more hours and to require getting much closer to 90% or more before identifying a likely winner.

    bernadineayers: G who’s gonna win tonight ?? in order please…

  9. avatar
    Arthur January 3, 2012 at 9:08 pm #

    I agree; however, while we might agree on what it means to spell poorly, we probably disagree on what it means to be a poor person. I, for example, think it’s mean to perpetuate baloney, even if that baloney feeds one’s political biases.

    bernadineayers: frank… lol

  10. avatar
    G January 3, 2012 at 9:08 pm #

    To whom? Alan Colmes is nothing but a prop-up punching bag for Hannity.

    Outside of Fox propping him up all these years, he’s not taken seriously or paid much attention to by other democrats and is often mocked by democrats outside of Fox.

    He’s a flimsy “token” and intentionally used by Fox as such. Sorry to burst your bubble, but he’s pretty much an inconsequential lightweight and mostly just a joke.

    bernadineayers:
    what happened with holmes ? he represents democrats.

  11. avatar
    Majority Will January 3, 2012 at 9:19 pm #

    “he represents democrats.”

    How mentally challenged do you have to be to confuse Alan Colmes with President Barack Obama?

  12. avatar
    nbc January 3, 2012 at 9:53 pm #

    bernadineayers: being a mean speller is better than being a mean person.

    What if one is both?

  13. avatar
    bernadineayers January 3, 2012 at 9:58 pm #

    nbc: What if one is both?

    indeed… my dear never been challenged

  14. avatar
    bernadineayers January 3, 2012 at 9:59 pm #

    who do you think will win tonite nbc ? (and you can’t pick yourself)

  15. avatar
    nbc January 3, 2012 at 10:02 pm #

    bernadineayers: who do you think will win tonite nbc ? (and you can’t pick yourself)

    I win every night so why should I pick myself?

    Ron Paul or Santorum. Either way, this would be great for President Obama as Ron Paul will never be allowed to become a president by the Republican establishment and Santorum’s brain dead ideas will make him un acceptable to democrats and moderates.

    I wish Santorum wins, throwing the whole primary into disarray with the threat of an unelectable Republican. Santorum is just too much of an American ‘taliban’ candidate…

  16. avatar
    Bob J January 3, 2012 at 10:02 pm #

    So, as a Will Rodgers fan ( I never met a fart joke, dirty word, or sports analogy I didn’t love) I can only take the recent birther “victory” the following way: Their team cleanly caught the opening kickoff in a preseason game, and they are now measuring digits for Super Bowl rings.

    Is that what the buzz on Orly’s site boils down to, in terms of what the Georgia judge did?

    There are over 100 comments about that article on Defend Our Freedoms.I think every birther has weighted in on the topic.

    I may not be a lawyer, but I know sports and it is never good form to do a victory dance at a tailgate party.

    By the way, Dr. C: The Fart in the Room in lieu of the Shot Heard ‘Round the World; pure poetry. Thanks.

  17. avatar
    nbc January 3, 2012 at 10:04 pm #

    In other good news, the tea party is diluted

    Supporters of the tea party made up about two-thirds of the electorate, and were nearly evenly split among Paul, Romney and Santorum.

    Fascinating…

  18. avatar
    bernadineayers January 3, 2012 at 10:04 pm #

    G:
    I can only fairly give my original set of predictions, which I first issued approx 4 days ago and have stuck with through today.You’ll find them posted numerous places on this site, but I’m happy to restate them again.

    Remember, this is only an educated guess, based on trying to study all the relevant factors for this caucus dynamic and giving heavier weight to the campaign’s reported GOTV & organizational ground game than just poll trending dynamics.


    1st – Ron Paul
    2nd –Rick Santorum
    3rd – Mitt Romney
    4th – Rick Perry
    5th – Newt Gingrich
    6th – Michele Bachmann

    So far, only 4% of the votes are reported.So far, results are being reported as a fairly tight 3-way race between Paul, Santorum and Romney for 1st place.

    In these early periods, expect the totals and who is in the lead to fluctuate quite a bit, as there are 1774 precincts that have to report and various districts will heavily favor one candidate over another, so we probably have to wait until we’ve gotten at least 40% of the vote in to see where things are trending.If the margins of difference are close, expect it to remain too close to call for several more hours and to require getting much closer to 90% or more before identifying a likely winner.

    awesome i’ll get mine

  19. avatar
    bernadineayers January 3, 2012 at 10:06 pm #

    1. rick santorum

    2. newt gingrich

    3. mitt romney

    4 . ron paul

    5. rick perry

    6. michelle bachman

  20. avatar
    bernadineayers January 3, 2012 at 10:08 pm #

    i’m watchin msnbc and dyin…

  21. avatar
    nbc January 3, 2012 at 10:08 pm #

    Newt will not even get close to 3rd position. He is a goner in Iowa… Bachman is where she deserves to be… Going for the elusive voter who is not counted by the polls…

    bernadineayers:
    1. rick santorum
    2. newt gingrich
    3. mitt romney
    4 . ron paul
    5. rick perry
    6. michelle bachman

  22. avatar
    bernadineayers January 3, 2012 at 10:09 pm #

    nbc: I win every night so why should I pick myself?

    Ron Paul or Santorum. Either way, this would be great for President Obama as Ron Paul will never be allowed to become a president by the Republican establishment and Santorum’s brain dead ideas will make him un acceptable to democrats and moderates.

    I wish Santorum wins, throwing the whole primary into disarray with the threat of an unelectable Republican. Santorum is just too much of an American taliban’ candidate…

    paul’s a liberal

  23. avatar
    Arthur January 3, 2012 at 10:10 pm #

    Bernadine:

    You may be right about Santorum. If you check out the link G. recently provided on another thread, it shows Santorum surging through central and western Iowa. Here’s the link if u r intristed. LOL!

    http://iowagop.org/

  24. avatar
    bernadineayers January 3, 2012 at 10:10 pm #

    nbc:
    Newt will not even get close to 3rd position. He is a goner in Iowa…Bachman is where she deserves to be… Going for the elusive voter who is not counted by the polls…

    you mean people without cell phones

  25. avatar
    nbc January 3, 2012 at 10:10 pm #

    bernadineayers: i’m watchin msnbc and dyin…

    I am watching Google elections and laughing… Iowa is going to make the Republicans come out swinging at each other in the next primaries…
    So much entertainment when the non-candidates self-destruct. Remember that the Republican power base does not want to win these elections as 2017 is going to be their year.

  26. avatar
    nbc January 3, 2012 at 10:13 pm #

    bernadineayers: you mean people without cell phones

    Or no phones?… You should ask Michelle what she meant by her comments. She knows deep down that she is, well, out of the game. Never much of a challenger. Too bad Huntsman never decided to make an effort in Iowa, he is one of the more reasonable candidates: well informed, logical and with reasoned arguments. Ron Paul is going to offend both sides. Santorum is too much of a ‘taliban’ candidate, wishing to return our nation to the dark ages of Christian fundamentalism.

  27. avatar
    bernadineayers January 3, 2012 at 10:18 pm #

    Arthur:
    Bernadine:

    You may be right about Santorum. If you check out the link G. recently provided on another thread, it shows Santorum surging through central and western Iowa. Here’s the link if u r intristed.LOL!

    http://iowagop.org/

    cool map… every county in iowa is the same shape and size (roughly)

    in comparison vermont has 14 counties connecticut has eight … most iowans live in cities, but it is flat…. i grew up in illionois…. iowa is flat…

  28. avatar
    bernadineayers January 3, 2012 at 10:20 pm #

    nbc: Or no phones?… You should ask Michelle what she meant by her comments. She knows deep down that she is, well, out of the game. Never much of a challenger. Too bad Huntsman never decided to make an effort in Iowa, he is one of the more reasonable candidates: well informed, logical and with reasoned arguments. Ron Paul is going to offend both sides. Santorum is too much of a taliban’ candidate, wishing to return our nation to the dark ages of Christian fundamentalism.

    would you pick huntsman to run against obama ?

  29. avatar
    G January 3, 2012 at 10:37 pm #

    Great analogy!

    Bob J: So, as a Will Rodgers fan ( I never met a fart joke, dirty word, or sports analogy I didn’t love) I can only take the recent birther “victory” the following way: Their team cleanly caught the opening kickoff in a preseason game, and they are now measuring digits for Super Bowl rings.

  30. avatar
    G January 3, 2012 at 10:41 pm #

    NBC, can you link to a source, please?

    I’m surprised that Gingrich, (who’s holding up much better than I expected BTW) is not in that mix and that Mitt Romney, the establishment candidate is…

    But definitely fascinating to see. Getting an indicator of where self-identified “Tea Party” folks are placing their votes will be a very important dynamic to follow as it will definitely be a key factor in shaping the overall direction of this race…

    nbc: In other good news, the tea party is diluted
    Supporters of the tea party made up about two-thirds of the electorate, and were nearly evenly split among Paul, Romney and Santorum.

    Fascinating…

  31. avatar
    JPotter January 3, 2012 at 10:41 pm #

    bernadineayers: paul’s a liberal

    Paul a liberal? not the same as libertarian. His particularly brand of libertarianism leads him to take a fun mix of positions, generally extreme right or extreme left. From what I know of him, though, he’s extreme left on social issues, extreme right on fiscal issues. So far to the right, we’re talking reptilian. His foreign policy is …. uh …. neither.

    Anyway, definitely not a liberal (or conservative!) in any commonly understood fashion!

  32. avatar
    Egh January 3, 2012 at 10:43 pm #

    Off topic.
    Hi dr c
    Didn’t notice exactly when you cleared lame cherry from the ugly, but it is finished .

    (That’s what she said.)

    Preemptive joke.

    Happy caucus.

  33. avatar
    JPotter January 3, 2012 at 10:44 pm #

    Some fun data in the exit polling …..

  34. avatar
    Arthur January 3, 2012 at 10:58 pm #

    JPotter: Some fun data in the exit polling …..

    Interesting! Thanks for the link.

  35. avatar
    G January 3, 2012 at 11:17 pm #

    Thanks for sharing your list. Honestly, with how truly open this race was, all guesses are fair guesses and I commend you for putting yours forth.

    This race is still “too close to call”, but there is a clear tight battle between the top 3 positions, that can still see some back & forth.

    I’m looking at the 88% totals at TPM right now and they have:

    1. Santorum 24.6%
    2. Romney 24.5%
    3. Paul 21.1%
    4. Newt 13.2%
    5. Perry 10.3%
    6. Bachmann 5.1%
    7. Huntsman 0.6%

    At these totals, I’d say that the #3-7 positions are pretty much set. It truly is a neck & neck battle between Santorum and Romney at this point.

    Tonight is a huge win for Santorum regardless. Newt in 4th actually keeps him alive and he will move on to attack in NH.

    Perry – he’s got a tough decision here. He blew a lot of cash to come in at 5th…but he was able to hold on above 10%. He may try to make a last stand in SC…but does he have the financial support to do so? If he drops out, that would be another big boost to both Santorum and Newt.

    Bachmann – she really needs to drop out with that finish, especially with how much she dedicated and invested in IA. That state really was make or break for her and it just broke her. Regardless what you think of her, she did work really hard and put in a dedicated effort to compete in IA, so I will tip my hat to her for giving it her best try…

    Jon Huntsman wasn’t competing here, so these results don’t hurt him at all. They don’t help him either. His battle is NH.

    Santorum will be the one to watch & money should really start to flow his way. The challenge will be for him to put together an organization and put that money to use in short time. How well he can do that will be as big a factor in his long term “viability” as anything else. He will probably make a small showing in NH to compete for the conservative vote there (and hope to grab a few delegates), but he won’t really be hurt if he doesn’t perform well there. SC is his next true test.

    Paul didn’t get what he wanted out of tonight, but he’s got another strong following in NH. Running such a close and competitive race and results for him is still a “win” in the bigger picture. He’ll pick up some delegates and be able to keep his following motivated.

    Romney doesn’t gain any momentum in this, but he remains the easy favorite to win NH by a very safe margin. His challenges will be in the states beyond that. FL will be his next true hope for a win after that.

    bernadineayers:
    1. rick santorum

    2. newt gingrich

    3. mitt romney

    4 . ron paul

    5. rick perry

    6. michelle bachman

  36. avatar
    Tomtech January 3, 2012 at 11:26 pm #

    You need to report this.

    Obama traveled to mars. “Only if you count watching Marvin the Martian,” Tommy Vietor, the spokesman for the National Security Council.

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01/obama-mars/

  37. avatar
    nbc January 3, 2012 at 11:33 pm #

    bernadineayers: would you pick huntsman to run against obama ?

    Any time. I could almost vote for him. Like Obama, he is a centrist.

  38. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 12:24 am #

    And then we have Romney making an end-sprint… Wow, this is going to be such a close finish.

  39. avatar
    Arthur January 4, 2012 at 12:38 am #

    99% of precincts are in, and Santorum leads Romney by . . . FIVE VOTES!

  40. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 12:42 am #

    Now Santorum is ahead by 5 votes… Yeah…

  41. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 1:44 am #

    Wow…that is a whole new level of loopyness! I almost feel like I entered “TimeCube” territory in reading that…

    Tomtech:
    You need to report this.

    Obama traveled to mars. “Only if you count watching Marvin the Martian,” Tommy Vietor, the spokesman for the National Security Council.

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01/obama-mars/

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 4, 2012 at 2:00 am #

    With 100% of the votes in, Rick Santorum has won the Iowa Republican Caucus by 18 votes over Mitt Romney, followed by Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry. Other candidates received less than 10% of the vote. Source: Associated Press.

    Iowa was deeply undecided as the top two candidates together received less than 50% of the votes.

  43. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 2:46 am #

    Romney just won…by 8 votes!

    Wow, what a down to the very last precinct photo finish (note: it had gone back & forth, but Santorum held a narrow lead for most of the last hour until the VERY LAST precinct in Clinton County (one of Romney’s strongholds) turned the tide one last time and gave Romney the win!

    That goes down as the closest IA Caucus in history!!! What an amazing and exciting night and what an incredibly interesting and exciting race!!!

    I’ll be back with more analysis in awhile. I’ll probably put it under the new Open Thread that Dr. C has just opened…

  44. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 2:48 am #

    Paul is NOT a liberal. He is a Conservative Libertarian.

    *HUGE* difference!

    bernadineayers: paul’s a liberal

  45. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 2:50 am #

    Actually, just the opposite.

    MOST polls are still tied primarily to Land Line phones. One of the biggest issues in polling is that a number of people have left land line phones all together. Therefore, it is this “cell phone only” community that is vastly under-represented in polls.

    bernadineayers: you mean people without cell phones

  46. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 4, 2012 at 3:11 am #

    You’re comments are now subject to review before I will allow them to appear. This is because you started a massive conversation about the Iowa Caucus results on an article that had nothing to do with Iowa. This is not the first time you’ve violated topic integrity. It is, however, the last. [The comments have since been move here.]

    bernadineayers: rachel maddow just announced that the iowa cuacus was too early to call !!!

  47. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 3:19 am #

    WOW!!!! Thanks for that link…the Exit Polling data was fascinating!!

    In terms of how the votes changed last minute…that really explains a lot! I expected, based on momentum that quite a few of the last day and “last few day” votes would break for Santorum…but I was really surprised to see how large the margins of voters were in this exit poll that decided to switch their vote TO Romney and Gingrich that day or in the last few days!!! I had figured that Romeny’s vote base had that same stable number range he’s had all along…so he really got quite the last minute surge himself! …And for quite a few to break TO Gingrich at the last minute really surprises me too, since his momentum had been going downwards…so quite the recovery for him too!

    I’m not surprised to see that Ron Paul was the main choice of the under 40 crowd. However, it is interesting to note that Romney wins the 65+ crowd by a significant margin! That is very interesting indeed…

    Also, interesting to see that 38% of the voters were 1st time Caucus goers. That a third of those went to Paul is not a surprise – he was expected to bring in new voters. But it is nice to see additional people participating in our democracy. I always see that as a healthy and good thing. The 43% of voters that were registered as “Independent” didn’t really surprise me either, and that really is too nebulous of a generalization to make much hay out of that at this point.

    It is interesting to note that those with favorable views of the Tea-Party overwhelmingly supported Santorum and that Romney’s voters was comprised of a high margin that had unfavorable views of the Tea-Party. I suspect that to be a key trend-line dynamic that continues to plays out as this Primary season unfolds…

    What surprises me is that Ron Paul was the candidate of choice by voters looking for a “True Conservative”… Santorum, came in a close second there and I would expect him to be at the top of that pack. I’m surprised that Newt, Perry and Bachmann weren’t higher than Paul in this category…

    Since Paul’s base of support was those younger and therefore likely to be less far along in their career path, I was not surprised at all to see him as the candidate of choice amongst the under $50 K crowd. Nor was I surprised to see that Romney is the choice of those that make over $100 K….

    JPotter:
    Some fun data in the exit polling …..

  48. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 3:42 am #

    Actually, there was still a precinct outstanding when you reported…they “miscounted” and had to recount, hence the confusion of some places reporting different totals. When that final Clinton County precinct came in, Santorum, who had been in 1st, dropped to 2nd in the final count and Romney won by 8 votes.

    The final numbers:

    Who Votes Percent Delegates Counties
    Mitt Romney 30,015 24.60% 63
    Rick Santorum 30,007 24.50% 17
    Ron Paul 26,219 21.40% 17
    Newt Gingrich 16,251 13.30%
    Rick Perry 12,604 10.30% 2
    Michele Bachmann 6,073 5.00%
    Jon Huntsman 745 0.60%
    Herman Cain ** 58 0%
    Buddy Roemer 31 0%
    Other 135 0.10%

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    With 100% of the votes in, Rick Santorum has won the Iowa Republican Caucus by 18 votes over Mitt Romney, followed by Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry. Other candidates received less than 10% of the vote. Source: Associated Press.

    Iowa was deeply undecided as the top two candidates together received less than 50% of the votes.

  49. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 3:44 am #

    A slight correction: Santorum won 63 counties and Romney only won 17 each. Rick Perry did win 2 counties.

    But the rest of my chart was correct, although it didn’t format as well when it posted from how I typed it… oh well, I hope that helps.

    As I said, Romney beat Santorum at the very end to win by 8 votes.

    G:
    Actually, there was still a precinct outstanding when you reported…they “miscounted” and had to recount, hence the confusion of some places reporting different totals.When that final Clinton County precinct came in, Santorum, who had been in 1st, dropped to 2nd in the final count and Romney won by 8 votes.

    The final numbers:

    WhoVotesPercentDelegatesCounties
    Mitt Romney30,01524.60%63
    Rick Santorum30,00724.50%17
    Ron Paul26,21921.40%17
    Newt Gingrich16,25113.30%
    Rick Perry12,60410.30%2
    Michele Bachmann6,0735.00%
    Jon Huntsman7450.60%
    Herman Cain **580%
    Buddy Roemer310%
    Other 1350.10%

  50. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 4:42 am #

    Romney gets the official “win”, but really, this exciting down-to-the wire election and its post-speech aftermath is a victory for all of the top 4 (Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich) and a campaign crushing defeat for the both Bachmann & Perry.

    I realize that Bachmann has not dropped out…but she’s really toast after that performance. Despite her weird speech at the end (that sounds like the same speech she would have read had she won…), she’s going to face intense pressure to drop out in the coming days and her campaign funding is probably tapped out.

    Perry’s decision to go back to TX to reconsider his campaign can pretty much be considered bowing out at this point too. He originally had a full campaigning schedule planned in SC for tomorrow…so halting to head back to TX probably puts the kibosh on his campaign for good. He gave a great effort to come back in Iowa and he probably spent most of the rest of his campaign war chest in that laudable effort. I simply don’t see him being able to fundraise to make a serious comeback in SC.

    Actually, this is the best possible result for Santorum, who is the TRUE winner of the night, in the bigger picture of things. With Perry and Bachmann effectively out of the race and Newt praising Santorum and threatening Romney is his speech, Santorum is a huge benefactor of not just his miraculus come-from-behind near victory in IA, but also all those other dynamics.

    Santorum will get the main headlines and momentum out of IA for his finish. Conservative and “Deep Red” votes and cash will now consolidate and flock to him as well as Newt Gingrich.

    Newt vowing to act as Santorum’s “wingman” and “block” for him is probably the most significant part of this new dynamic. It gives Rick some extra breathing room to focus on capitalizing on his momentum and have a chance to fundraise and put a campaign structure in place for those other upcoming states. (Note: Santorum *does* have a small existing campaign structure already in NH and SC).

    Further, while SC is the next big conservative vote contest, NH is actually fertile ground for both Santorum and Newt to compete in, with very little downside to doing so. Romney has such an overwhelming lead in that state (over 40%…and in some recent polls, a 20%+ lead margin) that NH is ALL about Romney.

    Therefore ANY performance in NH is a chance for Santorum & Newt to cut into Romney’s lead there (and therefore blunt any of his momentum) and more importantly, snag some delegates along the way. Both actually can make arguments that play in a NH setting. Santorum, being from PA can play in the Northeast. Even though he is an evangelical…he is also a Catholic…and there is a strong Catholic community in that region to pull from. He’s also Italian and I think NH might have a decent sized Italian community as well. Small identity factors like that always have a certain amount of draw in politics.

    Santorum also did an oustanding job of providing the best post-IA speech to really introduce himself to a nationwide and NH audience. It came across sincere, personal, passionate and should strike a cord with a fairly wide range of GOP voters. He did a great job of not only starting with a heartfelt personal story that conveys “working man” appeal, but also articulating a fairly broad and meaningful platform…and appealing to the issue of “jobs” more than I’ve really seen any of the GOP candidates do so far.

    Newt’s prior polling has shown he’s got some fairly receptive audiences in SC and FL in particular…(and a certain segment of NH that was starting to respond to him when his bubble was peaking)…so he benefits a lot from Perry dropping out too… and once again, could “rise again” to serious contention in these January contests, so don’t count him out of this by any stretch. (Although don’t count out Newt’s ability to implode again either…)

    Ron Paul, despite being overshadowed by the Santorum / Romney saga, still put in an extremely impressive 3rd place win. 3rd may not have felt like much at the moment, after being in a three-way contention for 1st during the early hours of the night…but as we move away from the immediacy of these results and onto the next contests, his campaign will be able to focus on the very impressive numbers he still racked up in that 3rd place showing (a vote total of 26,219 and 21.4% showing in IA is still a *HUGE* result). For those that support Paul, this will energize them further. For those considering Paul, this could convince them he has “viability”. It certainly is a huge leap from his 11K votes & 5th place showing there in 2008! NH also has a huge Libertarian leaning “Independent” voter base that Paul can really draw from. So I expect Ron Paul to be able to put in a competitive and impressive showing in NH as well.

    Jon Huntsman’s chances all depend on NH. With NH being all about Romney, expect the rest of the candidates to finally start going after Romney hard this week, as really they battling there to chip away and pull from his vote totals in order to grow their own… this is also the main contest where any of the “minor” candidates have their only real chance to make a dent…and again, all of it would really have to come by going after Romney’s voters.

    So, in summary, out of IA, we have a dymamic of 3 main factions of today’s GOP shoring up for what could be a sustained and worthy battle: Establishment (Romney), Red/Conservative (Santorum) and Libertarian-leaning (Paul), with two other contenders Newt and Huntsman still definitely in the mix…and some relatively unknowns hoping that NH can give them a blip…

    Romney is still the main story for IA. Everyone else’s performance there is a story of how they do relative to him and how they are able to pull votes away from him there. Regardless of the results, expect at least 4 of those “Big 5” to continue to to SC after NH – with only Huntsman’s fate truly make or break in that state…

    That will be the other story out of NH – Huntsman’s fate. What threshold and impact on Romney’s support does he need to demonstrate to remain in the race beyond that? Should he survive, his next states to try to complete would be FL and NV. I think he needs to get at least 15% of the NH vote if he wants to stay in this.

  51. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 4:45 am #

    Note: One other big news factor for Romney – John McCain will officially endorse him later today.

    The key here is what impact that has. I suspect it just hardens the existing dynamic of the Establishment coalescing around him…and might actually harden some “Tea Party” votes against him…

  52. avatar
    Klaus Stemplemeyerson January 4, 2012 at 6:22 am #

    Attorney Van Irion of the Liberty Legal Foundation filed a challenge in the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings on behalf of Plaintiff David Welden, challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be placed on the state’s primary election ballot.

    Irion called Obama’s conclusion that the issue raised by Welden was “soundly rejected by 69,459,897 Americans in the 2008 elections” “offensive to the Constitution” and said, “This statement reflects a complete lack of understanding regarding constitutional protections.”

    He argued, “Contrary to the defendant’s assertion, voters are not the final arbiters of whether an individual is qualified to hold office. America is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy without a constitution. In a Constitutional Republic the power of the majority is limited and cannot infringe upon protected rights of a minority.

    Continue reading on Examiner.com Obama eligibility challenges to move forward in Georgia – Phoenix Crime | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-phoenix/obama-eligibility-challenges-to-move-forward-georgia#ixzz1iUBT4J7g

    ————————————————————————————————————–

    Ouch!

  53. avatar
    Lupin January 4, 2012 at 6:41 am #

    As Rod Serling used to say, submitted for your consideration a thought-provoking article by the excellent Matt Taibi of ROLLING STONE on the meaningless sideshow that the 2012 elections have become:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/iowa-the-meaningless-sideshow-begins-20120103

  54. avatar
    Majority Will January 4, 2012 at 7:04 am #

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson: Ouch!

    And Irion is wrong on the law, Sven. Citing Minor and his other b.s. assertions will get him laughed out of court and rightfully derided by actual Constitutional scholars.

    Ouch, indeed.

  55. avatar
    Sef January 4, 2012 at 9:21 am #

    G: Other 135 0.10%

    Well, I guess we won’t have “Other” to kick around any longer.

  56. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2012 at 9:26 am #

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson: In a Constitutional Republic the power of the majority is limited and cannot infringe upon protected rights of a minority.

    Protected rights of a minority? Give me a break! The rights of minorities to free speech, free practise of religion, to a fair and imprtial trial are of course protected. The “rights” of a minority to remove someone from a ballot because of where his father was from? Not so much.

  57. avatar
    bernadineayers January 4, 2012 at 9:40 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    You’re comments are now subject to review before I will allow them to appear. This is because you started a massive conversation about the Iowa Caucus results on an article that had nothing to do with Iowa. This is not the first time you’ve violated topic integrity. It is, however, the last. [The comments have since been move here.]

    sorry doc, i got swept away in the excitement, but that’s a good idea anyway.

  58. avatar
    bernadineayers January 4, 2012 at 9:44 am #

    the election can be bought, but only by eight votes. romney is a dirtbag. on to new hampshire. if romney is the candidate campaigns will be pure evil.

  59. avatar
    bernadineayers January 4, 2012 at 10:29 am #

    bernadineayers: you are wrong colonal sanders…. you are also very mean.

    that was a movie reference you know. the media is ignoring the story so far.

  60. avatar
    bernadineayers January 4, 2012 at 11:00 am #

    bernadineayers: you are wrong colonal sanders…. you are also very mean.

    Soebarkah:
    We want full discovery so we can put this matter behind us. What does Obama have to hide by not releasing all the documents they want to see???

    i’m watching to see obama’s reaction, this one slipped by him.

  61. avatar
    Klaus Stemplemeyerson January 4, 2012 at 11:09 am #

    Majority Will: And Irion is wrong on the law, Sven. Citing Minor and his other b.s. assertions will get him laughed out of court and rightfully derided by actual Constitutional scholars.

    Ouch, indeed.

    Georgia Code states a candidate must be eligible to hold the office they are seeking to be placed on the ballot. There are many reasons a candidate may be ineligible for the office they are seeking.

    Van Irion is advocating one aspect of Obama’s ineligibility, i.e. his father was a foreign national at the time of his birth. Discovery has been denied and a Judgment will be made on the pleadings. Either a person born in the U.S. with a foreign national parent is NBC or not.

    If the Judge rules there is no doubt a person born in the U.S. with one US citizen parent and one foreign national parent is an NBC, then it would be contrary to Minor v Happersett, 1875. Of course, supporters of the U.S. Constitution will feel short changed because discovery has been denied and SCOTUS opinion in Minor v. Happersett, 1875 stated there were doubts a child with a non-citizen parent was NBC.

    Consequently, the Judge must rule Obama ineligible to be placed on the Georgia ballot or people will continue to question why Obama is allowed to evade discovery of factual evidence concerning his citizenship.

  62. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2012 at 11:16 am #

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson: If the Judge rules there is no doubt a person born in the U.S. with one US citizen parent and one foreign national parent is an NBC, then it would be contrary to Minor v Happersett, 1875.

    The judge will not rule that there is “no doubt”. Nothing in the law is decided at the “no doubt” standard. Criminal cases are not “no doubt”, but “beyond a reasonable doubt” . As a civil case, the standard here is “a preponderance of the evidence”. In other words, doubt only needs to be =/< 49.999999%.

  63. avatar
    Majority Will January 4, 2012 at 11:21 am #

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson: Of course, supporters of the U.S. Constitution will feel short changed because discovery has been denied and SCOTUS opinion in Minor v. Happersett, 1875 stated there were doubts a child with a non-citizen parent was NBC.

    You’re wrong. It’s already been explained here and elsewhere many times.

    “Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.”
    – U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land

  64. avatar
    Klaus Stemplemeyerson January 4, 2012 at 11:22 am #

    Scientist: The judge will not rule that there is “no doubt”.Nothing in the law is decided at the “no doubt” standard.Criminal cases are not “no doubt”, but “beyond a reasonable doubt” . As a civil case, the standard here is “a preponderance of the evidence”.In other words, doubt only needs to be =/< 49.999999%.

    The Judge denied the admission of evidence. There is no evidence for preponderance.

  65. avatar
    Majority Will January 4, 2012 at 11:24 am #

    Let’s see how many birthers will admit they are wrong when this and any other hearing is thrown out and the President rightfully remains on every state ballot.

    My guess is zero.

  66. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 11:29 am #

    G,
    I didn’t watch the play by play last night. Our son came in … on break from Afghanistan. We watched Ted Haggard’s wife swap and then a rented movie … but I did occasionaly check the status.
    I am not sure that Ron Paul won’t lose traction after this … I think expectations were raised that he might win. I for one was more likely to support him if he placed first and showed promise. Now I am more likely to go Santorum. I guess the weather wasn’t cold enough for Paul to win it.

  67. avatar
    Klaus Stemplemeyerson January 4, 2012 at 11:32 am #

    Majority Will:
    Let’s see how many birthers will admit they are wrong when this and any other hearing is thrown out and the President rightfully remains on every state ballot.

    My guess is zero.

    I guess zero, as well.

    No Discovery, No Justice!

  68. avatar
    James M January 4, 2012 at 11:39 am #

    joyeagle:
    I am not sure that Ron Paul won’t lose traction after this

    He probably will, but it’s really significant to me that he came well within 1% of a mainstream Republican and came far ahead of the establishment elder statesman. That’s really something.

  69. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2012 at 11:39 am #

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson: The Judge denied the admission of evidence. There is no evidence for preponderance.

    There is no need for discovery regarding Obama’s father’s citizenship, which is the argument the plaintiff is basing his case on. The parties have stipulated that he was not a US citizen. Are you claiming that he was?

  70. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2012 at 11:43 am #

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson: If the Judge rules there is no doubt a person born in the U.S. with one US citizen parent and one foreign national parent is an NBC, then it would be contrary to Minor v Happersett, 1875.

    By the way, judges are not bound by 1875 cases when subsequent law says differently. A modern case involving slavery (yes, it still exists) would not have to follow Scott v. Sanford, for example. It works the same in science. Modern chemists don’t need to consider phlogiston in their analyses and modern physicists don’t need to consider the ether.

  71. avatar
    James M January 4, 2012 at 11:43 am #

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson:

    Van Irion is advocating one aspect of Obama’s ineligibility, i.e. his father was a foreign national at the time of his birth. Discovery has been denied and a Judgment will be made on the pleadings. Either a person born in the U.S. with a foreign national parent is NBC or not.

    Discovery doesn’t mean you get to ask for every personal and/or confidential document regardless of whether it is relevant. The only relevant document has already been made public, so there is no argument for “discovery”. And this court is not being asked to rule (nor is it empowered to rule) in general on US citizenship, only on the candidate’s eligibility. If the plaintiff has any evidence concerning Obama’s citizenship, he may enter such evidence.

  72. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 11:48 am #

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson: If the Judge rules there is no doubt a person born in the U.S. with one US citizen parent and one foreign national parent is an NBC, then it would be contrary to Minor v Happersett, 1875. Of course, supporters of the U.S. Constitution will feel short changed because discovery has been denied and SCOTUS opinion in Minor v. Happersett, 1875 stated there were doubts a child with a non-citizen parent was NBC.

    Minor v Happersett says nothing about children born to one or more foreign parents other than to observe that there is some disagreement.
    Wong Kim Ark had to address the issue and found that such children were in fact natural born citizens.
    The Judge will follow the Court’s logic in Ankeny v Daniels which cited US v Wong Kim Ark

  73. avatar
    James M January 4, 2012 at 11:48 am #

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson:

    No Discovery, No Justice!

    What would you demand for discovery? The only relevant item would be the Hawaii COLB. I think that would be appropriate but it is already public, so there’s no argument for discovery.

  74. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 11:51 am #

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson: No Discovery, No Justice!

    That’s a strange legal position to take but understandable now that the birthers will get a ruling on the merits that they will not like.

    And thus the goalposts keep on moving. As expected… Discovery is not the magic bullet that allows one to raise irrelevant issues. All that needs to be established here is the date and location of President Obama’s birth. If he was born more than 35 years ago on US soil, he is eligible, assuming that the 14 years requirement are met.

  75. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 11:52 am #

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson: The Judge denied the admission of evidence. There is no evidence for preponderance.

    The Judge denied the motion to depose. The Administrative Court rules do not allow for much discovery. President Obama will provide his COLB or a verification in lieu of certification which will show him born on US soil.

    That should be the end of it.

  76. avatar
    James M January 4, 2012 at 11:54 am #

    nbc:

    Minor v Happersett says nothing about children born to one or more foreign parents other than to observe that there is some disagreement.

    It goes further, to explicitly state that it does not even seek to resolve such a disagreement.

    “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. “

  77. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 11:57 am #

    bernadineayers: the election can be bought, but only by eight votes. romney is a dirtbag. on to new hampshire. if romney is the candidate campaigns will be pure evil.

    Romney will be the candidate as the Republicans really have no acceptable alternative. Santorum, Perry and Bachman are too much the ‘taliban’ candidates who are wishing to return to the dark ages. Cain is gone, Newt has too much bagage and Huntsman is too ‘liberal’. Ron Paul will keep them a little honest but is not acceptable to the establishment.
    Romney will be the choice although the establishment fully knows he is not electable. They are not interested in 2013… It’s 2017 where the Republican ‘heavy weights’ are focusing on.
    Santorum made a good showing grabbing the vote from the evangelical ‘taliban’ and has no chance at the national level.

  78. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 11:59 am #

    James M: It goes further, to explicitly state that it does not even seek to resolve such a disagreement.

    “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. “

    Yes, I am very aware of the rulings. Furthermore, the note on citizenship is pure dicta. So in other words: Minor v Happersett has nothing to contribute and yet is cited while the birthers ignore the later precedent of US v Wong Kim Ark which quotes from Happersett and confirms the lower court’s finding that Wong Kim Ark is a natural born citizen.

    That’s why the court in Ankeny v Daniels found President Obama to be a Natural Born Citizen.

    It’s so simple..

  79. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2012 at 11:59 am #

    nbc: The Judge denied the motion to depose

    I’m not even sure how you would depose someone regarding the facts of their own birth, If you asked me about my own, i would have to honestly say that I was too young at the time to remember it.

  80. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 12:03 pm #

    Scientist: I’m not even sure how you would depose someone regarding the facts of their own birth, If you asked me about my own, i would have to honestly say that I was too young at the time to remember it.

    The motion to depose was not to find facts but to embarrass. The judge understood this quite well and focused on the affidavit that accompanied the motion to dismiss. They also wanted to depose this person. This makes sense but since the motion to dismiss was denied, there was no need to depose.

    The Judge will now decide the case based on the submissions, may order oral arguments and may even order the production of the COLB. But in the end, the case will not venture out into the realm of Orly’s foolish claims about SSN fraud etc. The two citizen parent argument will be rejected as lacking legal foundation and the Court will find President Obama to be a natural born citizen. That will be the end of the birthers’ state challenge but please please please let them continue. We need the entertainment.

  81. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 12:04 pm #

    So I see the DNC talking points is to label any person of faith as “Taliban” … you must be agnostic secularist to be appropriate to “progressive” america. Fortunately, the American people won’t see it that way, and the talking points won’t stick. By the way, for the record, Taliban simply tranlates as “students.”

    nbc: Romney will be the candidate as the Republicans really have no acceptable alternative. Santorum, Perry and Bachman are too much the taliban’ candidates who are wishing to return to the dark ages. Cain is gone, Newt has too much bagage and Huntsman is too liberal’. Ron Paul will keep them a little honest but is not acceptable to the establishment.
    Romney will be the choice although the establishment fully knows he is not electable. They are not interested in 2013… It’s 2017 where the Republican β€˜heavy weights’ are focusing on.
    Santorum made a good showing grabbing the vote from the evangelical taliban’ and has no chance at the national level.

  82. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2012 at 12:16 pm #

    joyeagle: So I see the DNC talking points is to label any person of faith as “Taliban”

    The issue with the Taliban is not what they believe but their willingness to impose those beliefs on the country as a whole. Let’s do a thought experiment-should Jews and Muslims be able to ban pork for everybody in the US? Should Hindus be able to ban beef? If the answer is no, then why should Christians be able to ban stuff they don’t like?

  83. avatar
    Daniel January 4, 2012 at 12:16 pm #

    Scientist: I’m not even sure how you would depose someone regarding the facts of their own birth,If you asked me about my own, i would have to honestly say that I was too young at the time to remember it.

    I don’t find that to be an acceptable excuse. I want immediate access to your Papaz circuits.

  84. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 12:19 pm #

    So I see the DNC talking points is to label any person of faith as “Taliban” … you must be agnostic secularist to be appropriate to “progressive” america

    Wow, I am not DNC? But I am not labeling any person of faith as Taliban, but rather the evangelical extremists who have chosen to return our nation to the middle ages. And no, I am a Christian myself who objects to the turn taken by the these evangelical extremists who foolishly believe that our Founding Fathers were divinely inspired, and who want to take away reproductive choice such as contraception. People who want to replace our Constitutional Republic with a fundamentalist Christian alternative deserve the title of the US ‘taliban’.

    Sure taliban may have a simple translation but then again so does Sharia… Will you be consistent?

  85. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 12:25 pm #

    Scientist: The issue with the Taliban is not what they believe but their willingness to impose those beliefs on the country as a whole. Let’s do a thought experiment-should Jews and Muslims be able to ban pork for everybody in the US? Should Hindus be able to ban beef? If the answer is no, then why should Christians be able to ban stuff they don’t like?

    And somewhat ironically, while some proclaim to oppose they are actually quite involved in the actions they are opposing. That’s the funny hypocrisy…

    But you are right, you have a choice not to engage in certain acts, you have a choice of faith but you do not have a right to force your beliefs onto me, certainly not when they are religious beliefs and the path to force them onto me is through legislation. The US never was and never should be a ‘Christian’ nation. It may have been a nation that recognizes the importance of faith, but it never should become a theocracy. God have mercy on us…

    There is a good reason why religion and politics should remain separate.

  86. avatar
    sfjeff January 4, 2012 at 12:26 pm #

    joyeagle: So I see the DNC talking points is to label any person of faith as “Taliban” … you must be agnostic secularist to be appropriate to “progressive” america. Fortunately, the American people won’t see it that way, and the talking points won’t stick. By the way, for the record, Taliban simply tranlates as “students.”

    Odd isn’t it that you dont consider Romney a person of faith?

  87. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 12:30 pm #

    I observed that joyeagle likes santorum, which helps me understand why he sounds a bit upset.

    Santorum would be a dream candidate for President Obama but sadly enough, even the Republicans would not be that foolish.

  88. avatar
    Klaus Stemplemeyerson January 4, 2012 at 12:30 pm #

    James M: What would you demand for discovery?The only relevant item would be the Hawaii COLB.I think that would be appropriate but it is already public, so there’s no argument for discovery.

    If you compare the original long form birth certificate of and the COLB, then you’ll see the original BC has a date accepted, while the COLB has a date filed. This implies a change or update to the birth record.

    We know from Barry’s Indonesian school record that he was born in Honolulu, HI on Aug 4, 1961. We also know Barry’s father was listed as Lolo Soetoro. What a coincidence? Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug 4, 1961 and his step-father was Lolo Soetoro. An AP photograph of the Indonesian school record is in the public domain.

    The complete birth record, including the Barry Soetoro COLB, will have to be examined. If the complete birth record indicates Obama was Barry Soetoro, Indonesian National, then his complete immigration file will have to examined to determine current citizenship status.

  89. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2012 at 12:36 pm #

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson: will have to be examined

    Have to? The only thing that HAS to happen is we all HAVE to die some day. What will you do if it isn’t examined? Cry? Would you please post that on the Tube of You? Thanks

  90. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 12:38 pm #

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson: If you compare the original long form birth certificate of and the COLB, then you’ll see the original BC has a date accepted, while the COLB has a date filed. This implies a change or update to the birth record.

    Nope. The original contains the language used in 1961, the COLB revised the description from date accepted to date filed as the latter one is more relevant.

    We have seen the same ‘date filed’ on other COLB’s… No change or update. Sorry my friend.

  91. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 12:42 pm #

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson: We know from Barry’s Indonesian school record that he was born in Honolulu, HI on Aug 4, 1961. We also know Barry’s father was listed as Lolo Soetoro. What a coincidence? Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug 4, 1961 and his step-father was Lolo Soetoro. An AP photograph of the Indonesian school record is in the public domain.

    I believe what was listed was parent which is different from father. Who else should be listed now that his mother was married to Soetoro?
    If President Obama was born in Hawaii, no matter the nationality of his father, he is a natural born citizen. The Indonesian school record shows nothing to contradict this, and in fact support the main fact. Thank you for emphasizing this.
    As to Obama having lost his citizenship as a youngster, it is sufficient to observe that parents cannot reject their child’s birthright citizenship, only the child when reaching the age of majority can do so.

    Again, I understand you moving the goalposts time after time but there is just nothing there…

  92. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 12:43 pm #

    Yep, as I expected: Name of the parents…

    Next…

  93. avatar
    Majority Will January 4, 2012 at 12:55 pm #

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson: . . . his complete immigration file will have to examined to determine current citizenship status.

    Yawn. C’mon, Sven. Make up something new. You’re schtick is beyond stale.

    “We know from . . . ”

    There’s that mysterious “we” again. You will never get your deposit back.

  94. avatar
    gorefan January 4, 2012 at 12:55 pm #

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson: The complete birth record, including the Barry Soetoro COLB, will have to be examined.

    You should subpoena the records of the Catholic Charities of Connecticut. Have have it on dubious authority that they are hiding some explosive information.

  95. avatar
    Klaus Stemplemeyerson January 4, 2012 at 1:01 pm #

    nbc: That’s a strange legal position to take but understandable now that the birthers will get a ruling on the merits that they will not like.

    And thus the goalposts keep on moving. As expected… Discovery is not the magic bullet that allows one to raise irrelevant issues. All that needs to be established here is the date and location of President Obama’s birth. If he was born more than 35 years ago on US soil, he is eligible, assuming that the 14 years requirement are met.

    Craig v. U.S., 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, 2009

    Even liberally construed, Mr. Craig’s claim is not grounded in a constitutional or federal question: there is no such “right” (a) to have courts adopt his proffered legal definition, (b) to be classified as a citizen pursuant to that definition, or (c) to obtain certification of the status he attempts to define.

    No U.S. Citizen has a right to be classified as a Natural born citizen because it is undefined by the US Constitution. Consequently, ballot placement eligibility for a POTUS candidate can only be determined by eliminating those who are not eligible:

    1) Naturalized U.S. Citizens (clearly defined by the Congress)
    2) not obtained the age of 35 years old
    3) hasn’t lived in the U.S. for 14 years prior
    4) Not a U.S. Citizen.

  96. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 1:01 pm #

    I use to be overly impressed with the regular posters here as rational, and “objective” … even if opinionated. I still appreciate some for there reason (G and the like) … but I still find the majority really are more emotionally charged than reasoned. Like this. There is no logic in imposing thoughts on me suggesting Romney is not a person of faith. I think he is a very devout person of faith.

    sfjeff: Odd isn’t it that you dont consider Romney a person of faith?

  97. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2012 at 1:10 pm #

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson: No U.S. Citizen has a right to be classified as a Natural born citizen because it is undefined by the US Constitution. Consequently, ballot placement eligibility for a POTUS candidate can only be determined by eliminating those who are not eligible:
    1) Naturalized U.S. Citizens (clearly defined by the Congress)
    2) not obtained the age of 35 years old
    3) hasn’t lived in the U.S. for 14 years prior
    4) Not a U.S. Citizen.

    Obama’s birth certificate rules out all of those. When his Republican opponents deign to provide us with some documents (so far they have shown nada). then we can perhaps say something regarding them. As of now, they all may be ineligible.

  98. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 1:11 pm #

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson: No U.S. Citizen has a right to be classified as a Natural born citizen because it is undefined by the US Constitution.

    That’s a poor interpretation of the ruling. People do not have a right to be classified as a NBC unless there is a clear requirement. NBC status only affects one’s ability to run for the Office of the President. There is no right to have the Courts adopt Craig’s definition of NBC…

    Read the decision and comprehend… Life will be so much simpler.

  99. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 1:12 pm #

    joyeagle: but I still find the majority really are more emotionally charged than reasoned. Like this. There is no logic in imposing thoughts on me suggesting Romney is not a person of faith. I think he is a very devout person of faith.

    Ah but we all make sometimes some perhaps uninformed assertions, even you have fallen victim of that so let’s not paint with too broad a brush and end up including oneself as well?

  100. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2012 at 1:13 pm #

    joyeagle: There is no logic in imposing thoughts on me suggesting Romney is not a person of faith. I think he is a very devout person of faith.

    What about the President? And on what grounds do you determine who is and who is not “a person of faith”. Their say so? Attendance at services? How can you know someone else’s innermost thoughts?

  101. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 1:13 pm #

    I said DNC because I’ve seen it from several different sources now (referencing Santorum as “Taliban”).
    Talk about extreme hyperbole and fear-based bashing. I don’t believe you can actually believe what you are spouting here … but maybe you do. Do you really believe he wants to take you back to “the Dark Ages” and theocracy? I’ve been guilty … even on here, of talking this same way about Obama. You know, he wants to transform America into a communist state and wants america to collapse financially, and all the other things conservatives will speak out of emotion and fear. This whole line of liberal “taliban, theocracy” etc is the same stuff. He is no different than GW or Reagan on these issues, and we escaped the dark ages with both. What I sense is, it is all about abortion. That you consider a form of contraception and I consider murder. There is no way to reconcile those views either. The majority impose their morales on the minority boy lovers and many other forms of unacceptable cultural faux pas, based on our Christian heritage as a nation.

    nbc: Wow, I am not DNC? But I am not labeling any person of faith as Taliban, but rather the evangelical extremists who have chosen to return our nation to the middle ages. And no, I am a Christian myself who objects to the turn taken by the these evangelical extremists who foolishly believe that our Founding Fathers were divinely inspired, and who want to take away reproductive choice such as contraception. People who want to replace our Constitutional Republic with a fundamentalist Christian alternative deserve the title of the US taliban’.

    Sure taliban may have a simple translation but then again so does Sharia… Will you be consistent?

  102. avatar
    J. Potter January 4, 2012 at 1:14 pm #

    nbc: I am watching Google elections and laughing… Iowa is going to make the Republicans come out swinging at each other in the next primaries…

    Indeed it will! Looking over the county-by-county results and the exit polling, I am struck by the similarities between this Iowa caucus and the general election of ’08. It was widely noted that Obama won the urban areas, McCain the rural areas. In Iowa, Romney won the urban areas, Santorum the rural areas. Perusing the exit polling you can see preferences by age and wealth. A little surprisingly, education wasn’t a factor, (except in regards to Perry!).

    To an extent, the same dualities seen in the same between the major parties are now manifesting themselves within the Reds. I’ll be interested in seeing whether this trend continues. If it does, this process suddenly looks more predictable! The Deep Red candidate did well in a rural state. Across the country as a whole, whoever the Deep Reds favor in rejection of Romney won’t have a chance. Further, whichever faction of the Red party can maintain focus on 1 candidate the longest will win out in the end. Romney’s support has been rock-solid. Paul’s support varies, but has a core of long-term diehards. The passion of the Deep Reds, however, has a 2-week lifespan.

  103. avatar
    Majority Will January 4, 2012 at 1:15 pm #

    “You’re schtick is beyond stale.”

    (s/b your – laboring the contractions)

  104. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 1:16 pm #

    So let’s sum up:

    1. Minor v Happerset is not a useful precedent as it
    a. Refuses to address the status of children not born to two US citizens
    b. Is dicta
    2. US v Wong Kim Ark is the guiding precedent as shown in Ankeny v Daniels and defines any child born on US soil, with minor exceptions, to be natural born citizens
    3. Parents cannot reject their child’s birthright citizenship

    So unless President Obama, of appropriate age, rejected somehow his citizenship, there is no reason to investigate his immigration records. And of course there exists no evidence of such as the President did return to his native country at the age of 9(?) and has continued to live there ever since.

    Such are the undeniable facts.

  105. avatar
    sfjeff January 4, 2012 at 1:16 pm #

    You responded to this statement:

    Santorum, Perry and Bachman are too much the taliban’ candidates who are wishing to return to the dark ages.

    joyeagle: So I see the DNC talking points is to label any person of faith as “Taliban” … you must be agnostic secularist to be appropriate to “progressive” america.

    Jeff: And you said here that the DNC is labelling any person of faith as “Taliban”- but the original post only specified 3 people as Taliban- and Mitt Romney is not one of them.

    “I use to be overly impressed with the regular posters here as rational, and “objective” … even if opinionated. I still appreciate some for there reason (G and the like) … but I still find the majority really are more emotionally charged than reasoned. Like this. There is no logic in imposing thoughts on me suggesting Romney is not a person of faith. I think he is a very devout person of faith. ”

    Jeff: Then clearly your statement that the DNC labels any person of faith as Taliban was false.

  106. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 1:20 pm #

    Perhaps the solution is to have the Republican candidate be a ‘trinity’ of Romney, Ron Paul and Santorum…

    Romney may not be acceptable to the ‘Taliban’ group, Ron Paul will be unacceptable to those objecting to immigration, and Santorum will be unelectable because of his ‘taliban’ fundamentalism.

    Newt disappointed but may assign it to his positive campaigning and he may come out swinging hard, Santorum feels empowered and will need to define himself against the other candidates, Ron Paul… Well he will continue to be the ‘crazy uncle in the attic’ of the Republican party and may end up splitting the vote if he decides to run as an independent.

  107. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 1:21 pm #

    sfjeff: Jeff: Then clearly your statement that the DNC labels any person of faith as Taliban was false.

    Or emotionally charged rather than reasoned?

  108. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 1:23 pm #

    You can’t. You can’t no for sure, but for those who are serious and consistent people of faith, they do recognize many signs of differences between true believers and those with simple religious identity, similar to culture. It may not even be important to most of us for our politicians. But the vitriol and slander that comes out against those who express themselves freely about it, is … what I find telling.
    Is the president a man of faith? He obviously has religious identity. His church that he identified with is more of the social justice and political emphasis than faith. He does denounce Christian’s who “cling to their bibles.” I understand why people are uncomfortable with his faith if that is important to them. It isn’t so much to me. I think Ronald Reagan was one of our greatest presidents, but if I were to judge his faith, I don’t think he was a great man of faith. I think he culturally identified with the Christian religion. But who cares? I think it is OK for a politician to be a man of faith and express that too. Like Washington and Lincoln and others. It doesn’t matter. But “progressives” want to prohibit the free expression of faith by politicians.

    Scientist: What about the President?And on what grounds do you determine who is and who is not “a person of faith”.Their say so?Attendance at services?How can you know someone else’s innermost thoughts?

  109. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 1:23 pm #

    sfjeff: joyeagle: So I see the DNC talking points is to label any person of faith as “Taliban” … you must be agnostic secularist to be appropriate to “progressive” america.

    I cannot speak for all the progressives in America but I find nothing wrong with people holding a religious faith. We all are, in some form, spiritually beings. What I do find objectionable is the ‘Taliban’ tendencies of the evangelical fundamentalist dominionists who have no respect for our Nation and the founding documents.

  110. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 1:25 pm #

    joyeagle: But who cares? I think it is OK for a politician to be a man of faith and express that too. Like Washington and Lincoln and others. It doesn’t matter. But “progressives” want to prohibit the free expression of faith by politicians.

    That my friend is irrational, emotionally charged and ill supported by any logic and reason. There is a big difference between free expression of faith by a politician and having their faith impose restrictions on others. It’s the latter to which most reasonable people would object.

  111. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

    Lincoln was a man of private faith who invoked images of religion in his speeches and writings but never imposed his faith onto others. Similarly Washington understood the importance of not imposing one’s faith onto others.

    There is a reason why the Founders carefully separated religion and government.

  112. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 1:32 pm #

    Well, I can see I hit a chord with you on the irrational, emotionally charged, charge. I’m glad you acknowledge that.
    So how is any fundamentalist, christian politician (I mean that we all would know on the national stage) … or Rick Santorum specifically, trying to impose restrictions on others? Is it simply abortion? I think that is probably your case, since you haven’t added any other items.

    nbc: That my friend is irrational, emotionally charged and ill supported by any logic and reason. There is a big difference between free expression of faith by a politician and having their faith impose restrictions on others. It’s the latter to which most reasonable people would object.

  113. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 1:36 pm #

    Washington told a group of Indians, the most important thing they could gain from the white man and “Americans” was the religion of Jesus.
    They didn’t feel the need to separate themselves from Religion.
    Lincoln imposed his values of all men are created equal on the whole country. It was based on his religious values. No different than pro-life candidates today.

    nbc:
    Lincoln was a man of private faith who invoked images of religion in his speeches and writings but never imposed his faith onto others. Similarly Washington understood the importance of not imposing one’s faith onto others.

    There is a reason why the Founders carefully separated religion and government.

  114. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

    You struck a chord with your comments as I found them to be highly ironic given your own proclamations.

    Santorum’s position on contraception is far more objectionable to me than his position on abortion, as I have grown somewhat accustomed to the foolish Republican attempts to limit the right of the woman.

    His position on creationism in education is highly objectionable to me because he hid them under the veil of ‘scientific controversies’.

    The public supports the position we are taking today. For instance, national opinion surveys show–to use the origins issue again–that Americans overwhelmingly desire to have students learn the scientific arguments against, as well as for, Darwin’s theory.

    His position on stem cell research and gay rights:

    All of us have heard people say, ‘I privately am against abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, cloning. But who am I to decide that it’s not right for somebody else?’ It sounds good, but it is the corruption of freedom of conscience.

    His position on abstinence only teaching in public schools

    His position on the ‘war against Islam’

    “We are not fighting a war on terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic. We are fighting a war against radical Islam…What all the radical Islamic leaders are saying is just β€˜Wait America out. America is weak, they will not stand for the fight… we will be the strong horse in the region.’ President Obama, by making political decision after political decision about timelines and constraints on rules of engagement has validated everything these radical Islamists are saying.”

    On Palestine

    “There are no Palestinians. All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis. There are no Palestinians. This is Israeli land.”

    On global warming

    “I believe the earth gets warmer and I also believe the earth gets cooler. And I think history points out that it does that and that the idea that man, through the production of CO2 — which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the man-made part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas — is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd when you consider all the other factors.”

    Enough?

    joyeagle: Well, I can see I hit a chord with you on the irrational, emotionally charged, charge. I’m glad you acknowledge that.
    So how is any fundamentalist, christian politician (I mean that we all would know on the national stage) … or Rick Santorum specifically, trying to impose restrictions on others? Is it simply abortion? I think that is probably your case, since you haven’t added any other items.

  115. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

    Sure, they could gain form learning more about the ‘white mans’ culture and religion but he did not force the Christian faith onto the native american as he understood the importance of freedom of and from religion.

    Most founding fathers did feel the need to separate their private faith from their public pronounciations, often invoking generic terms of deities and Gods.

    That people are created equal is hardly as objectionable as the concept that some people may impose their faith beliefs on women who have become pregnant. Surely you must understand the differences here. One is inclusive, the other exclusive.

    joyeagle: Washington told a group of Indians, the most important thing they could gain from the white man and “Americans” was the religion of Jesus.
    They didn’t feel the need to separate themselves from Religion.
    Lincoln imposed his values of all men are created equal on the whole country. It was based on his religious values. No different than pro-life candidates today.

  116. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2012 at 1:50 pm #

    joyeagle: But “progressives” want to prohibit the free expression of faith by politicians.

    Source?

  117. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 1:52 pm #

    I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country.

    — George Washington, responding to a group of clergymen who complained that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, in 1789, Papers, Presidential Series, 4:274, the “Magna-Charta” here refers to the proposed United States Constitution

  118. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 1:56 pm #

    Or my favorite

    We have reason to rejoice in the prospect that the present national government which by the favour of Divine Providence was formed by the common counsels and peaceably established with the common consent of the people will prove a blessing to every denomination of them. To render it such my best endeavours shall not be wanting.

    Government being among other purposes instituted to protect the persons and consciences of men from oppression it certainly is the duty of rulers not only to abstain from it themselves but according to their stations to prevent it in others.

    Letter To the Religious Society called Quakers at their Yearly Meeting for Pennsylvania Nciv Jersey Delaware and the Western Part of Maryland and Virginia October 1789

  119. avatar
    Daniel January 4, 2012 at 1:58 pm #

    The problem has always been, that if our elected representatives allow their most restrictive religious beliefs to dictate their public policy, that only those who happen to choose to share those religious beliefs will be represented.

    In a country where voters run the gamut of religious belief and non-belief, the President, who must remain impartial for the benefit of ALL citizens, must either equally represent ALL of them, or must, as is the only practical solution, remain religiously neutral in discharging his or her office.

  120. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2012 at 1:59 pm #

    joyeagle: You can’t no for sure, but for those who are serious and consistent people of faith, they do recognize many signs of differences between true believers and those with simple religious identity, similar to culture

    En anglais, SVP…

    joyeagle: What I sense is, it is all about abortion. That you consider a form of contraception and I consider murder.

    If you truly consider it murder, then I hope you won’t shy away from prosecuting EVERY woman who has an abortion for 1st degree murder (since it is pre-meditated) and from imposing the death penalty. There is no “sort-of” regarding murder, after all. None of this wussy “We’ll shut down a few clinics or go after a few docs.” stuff. Murder is serious, my friend. And no going overseas to have an abortion. Nopey-nope. Make that murder too and arrest the ladies when they arrive at the border. If they stay overseas, send the Seals to grab them. After all, can’t let people get away with murder, can we?

    Are you a person of REAL convictions or a poseur, sir.

  121. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 2:03 pm #

    Ok. So that is a better argument. Thanks. Still, of course, I would disagree, and I think logic will hold up that nothing you are suggesting measures up to imposing a Theocracy or taking America to the Dark Ages.
    For instance, who cares his personal opinion on origins–that is not a presidential issue. How does his stance on education impact that–he wants states and local school boards to determine education improvements, requirements rather than the federal govt. That may be pre-1976, but not exactly dark age theocracy.
    What is his policy on contraception that you find so objectionable. You mean the fact that he is a practicing catholic and doesn’t do contraception for himself and has 7 kids … do you find that objectionable? What policy is he trying to impose?
    His position on gay rights–that marriage between man and woman is the foundation building block of our society, is no different than the centuries of our country’s existence. Not exactly dark ages–just status quo. Not quite meeting up with “Theocracy” unless that is what America has been all along.
    I understand we disagree on these issues and never will agree … can’t you just be … just admit he is not trying to impose theocracy and dark ages on anyone? \

    nbc:
    You struck a chord with your comments as I found them to be highly ironic given your own proclamations.

    Santorum’s position on contraception is far more objectionable to me than his position on abortion, as I have grown somewhat accustomed to the foolish Republican attempts to limit the right of the woman.

    His position on creationism in education is highly objectionable to me because he hid them under the veil of scientific controversies’.

    His position on stem cell research and gay rights:

    His position on abstinence only teaching in public schools

    His position on the war against Islam’

    On Palestine

    On global warming

    Enough?

  122. avatar
    J. Potter January 4, 2012 at 2:05 pm #

    Oh, man. Bachmann quit. Dang.

  123. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 2:11 pm #

    Daniel,
    Hey, I’ve been wanting to ask you …
    please don’t take this wrong, I am truly curious and not just poking fun. I’ve read many of your posts over the months and I know you despise not only birthers, but conservatives of my ilk in the republican party.
    I wonder, what is it that you LIKE about the republicans, what platform of republican distinguishes them from Democrats that keeps you in the party and voting that way.
    Like I said, I am honestly curious

    Daniel:
    The problem has always been, that if our elected representatives allow their most restrictive religious beliefs to dictate their public policy, that only those who happen to choose to share those religious beliefs will be represented.

    In a country where voters run the gamut of religious belief and non-belief, the President, who must remain impartial for the benefit of ALL citizens, must either equally represent ALL of them, or must, as is the only practical solution, remain religiously neutral in discharging his or her office.

  124. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

    No … can’t prosecute anything, it is legal murder in America. That is what we want to change. I don’t think the women are the criminals. It is the doctors committing the crimes. The women are victims in this. Remember Roe v Wade, the lady who fought for her “abortion rights” in that was Norma McCorvey. She leads a group opposing it. She has thousands upon thousands of affidavits from women who have had abortions that have been traumatized by it and oppose it now. A large number of them were forced into it. It is not about women’s rights or contraception.

    Scientist: En anglais, SVP…

    If you truly consider it murder, then I hope you won’t shy away from prosecuting EVERY woman who has an abortion for 1st degree murder (since it is pre-meditated) and from imposing the death penalty.There is no “sort-of” regarding murder, after all.None of this wussy “We’ll shut down a few clinics or go aftera few docs.” stuff.Murder is serious, my friend.And no going overseas to have an abortion.Nopey-nope.Make that murder too and arrestthe ladies when they arrive at the border.If they stay overseas, send the Seals to grab them.After all, can’t letpeople get away with murder, can we?

    Are you a person of REAL convictions or a poseur, sir.

  125. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

    And it has always had genocide roots. That is why Richard Nixon didn’t oppose it–he thought it was necessary in case there was a black and white pregnancy.

  126. avatar
    Arthur January 4, 2012 at 2:23 pm #

    On Tuesday night, Pat Robertson revealed that God told him who the next president will be, but that he’s “not supposed to talk about that,” leaving his followers to guess at God’s choice. Robertson did allow that God’s not smiling on Obama’s agenda and that only with “overwhelming prayer” will the U.S. elect a leader with the strength to keep America from failure.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/pat-robertson-president-2012-god_n_1181669.html?ref=mostpopular

    Article includes video.

  127. avatar
    Daniel January 4, 2012 at 2:28 pm #

    joyeagle: it is legal murder in America.

    That is a contradiction in terms.

    Murder is is the unlawful killing of a person. It is impossible, by definition, for “legal murder” to exist.

  128. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 2:29 pm #

    joyeagle: Ok. So that is a better argument. Thanks. Still, of course, I would disagree, and I think logic will hold up that nothing you are suggesting measures up to imposing a Theocracy or taking America to the Dark Ages.

    Your question, to which I was responding, was about Santorum and him imposing his religious beliefs onto others. If you want to discuss the theocratic and dominionist tendencies then I would not mind discussing them as well.

    For instance, who cares his personal opinion on origins–that is not a presidential issue.

    It is when the candidate has shown himself to not shy away from inserting his personal opinion into laws that serve to allow the teaching of ‘creationism’ as a scientific alternative. If this were his personal opinion then I would be less inclined to hold him accountable but they are not.

    How does his stance on education impact that–he wants states and local school boards to determine education improvements, requirements rather than the federal govt. That may be pre-1976, but not exactly dark age theocracy.

    Again, the local determination of what is taught undermines the right to education and a fair and equal opportunity. School boards are notorious for using their granted powers for evil and the ‘teach the controversy’ movement, fueled by Santorum’s bill has led some school boards down a path detrimental for those being educated. Look at the school board in Texas which has sought to rewrite American History as well as science as an excellent example of how local school boards are not the place where curriculum decisions should be made.

    What is his policy on contraception that you find so objectionable. You mean the fact that he is a practicing catholic and doesn’t do contraception for himself and has 7 kids … do you find that objectionable? What policy is he trying to impose?

    To take away the right of privacy of people who want to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancies? I do not find him having made a choice to have 7 children objectionable but rather the stance that contraception should be made illegal. That I find objectionable. The fact that several states have gone down this path should be a concern to any American.

    His position on gay rights–that marriage between man and woman is the foundation building block of our society, is no different than the centuries of our country’s existence. Not exactly dark ages–just status quo. Not quite meeting up with “Theocracy” unless that is what America has been all along.

    This country has been notoriously racist and anti-woman as well, to impose his personal beliefs onto how we should treat our fellow men and women is what I find objectionable. We cannot point to the past as a validation of our present follies.

    I understand we disagree on these issues and never will agree … can’t you just be … just admit he is not trying to impose theocracy and dark ages on anyone? \

    That’s different from the question I was addressing. If you want to move the goalposts, then fine, we can discuss but I’d rather first resolve these issues. He clearly expresses his beliefs that personal objections to gays, abortion etc are not sufficient but rather that there is a need to express these religious beliefs into political action. That is a dangerous path towards a theocracy and dark ages, where we let our superstitions and fears guide us rather than logic and reason.
    To me Christiany is a religion of hope and love not exclusion and hatred based on fear.

  129. avatar
    Klaus Stemplemeyerson January 4, 2012 at 2:29 pm #

    nbc: That’s a poor interpretation of the ruling. People do not have a right to be classified as a NBC unless there is a clear requirement. NBC status only affects one’s ability to run for the Office of the President. There is no right to have the Courts adopt Craig’s definition of NBC…

    Read the decision and comprehend… Life will be so much simpler.

    The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals derived their opinion by referring to Schneider v Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)

    The rights of the native born are derived from Subsection 1, 14th Amendment. The rights of the Naturalized citizen is derived from statute codified by the Congress.

    “The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights.”

    No person has the right to be classified as a Natural born citizen using any definition proffered. Georgia ballot eligibility can only be determined by establishing who is not eligible, i.e. naturalized U.S. citizens, a U.S. citizen under the age of 35, a U.S. Citizen who has not lived in the U.S. for fourteen years.

  130. avatar
    US Citizen January 4, 2012 at 2:31 pm #

    joyeagle: That you consider a form of contraception and I consider murder. There is no way to reconcile those views either. The majority impose their morales on the minority boy lovers and many other forms of unacceptable cultural faux pas, based on our Christian heritage as a nation.

    There IS a way to reconcile views about abortion for some people.
    Some people will cry that a baby is being killed, yet are the same people that disappear when it comes time for adoption, work training of the eventual adult they become or their care when elderly.
    It’s all very nice to scream “think of the children!”, but these same voices are usually quite silent when that baby turns into an adult. And without a proper family and education, many of these “previous precious babies” turn to crime in order to survive. Then the same voices are heard, but they’re condemnatory, not of the loving grace extolled when that same person was just a baby.
    “Reconcile” may therefore be interpreted as foresight.
    Simply put, many have that foresight and don’t want to add people to the ranks of the uneducated and criminally inclined.
    To those with such foresight, this can be considered as a great hypocrisy.
    Everyone loves a kitten or puppy, but fewer want to put up with what they eventually become: sickly and lame.

    As far as our “Christian heritage as a nation”, we became a nation by writing and following the Constitution.
    This same Constitution makes very specific mentions about religion, the separation of it from government and the concept that no one religion, including atheism, reigns supreme. To enforce this, the writers of the Constitution declared that there shall be no test in regard to religion.
    No test means no qualifier. Nothing that indicates we’re a Christian nation or any other singular or predominant religious following.
    This type of hypocrisy does seem to run rampant with the right- love babies, hate humans with less brains, money or capability. Or love the Constitution, but then lobby for Christian religious based laws, military actions against countries that aren’t predominantly Christian, etc.
    Seems like a big double standard.

  131. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 2:32 pm #

    joyeagle: And it has always had genocide roots. That is why Richard Nixon didn’t oppose it–he thought it was necessary in case there was a black and white pregnancy.

    Sure, different people may have had different reasons to allow for the concept of abortion but we should not confuse their motivations with the argument that underlines the majority of people’s decision to recognize the right of the woman. I doubt that one would find many who would in present day support abortion for genocidal reasons or racist reasons…

    So let’s not confuse the issue here by flawed logic.

  132. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2012 at 2:34 pm #

    joyeagle: I don’t think the women are the criminals. It is the doctors committing the crimes.

    You are a poseur, then. If abortion is TRULY murder, then the women are hiring killers, which is first degree murder. Have the courage of your convictions or slink away in abject failure.

  133. avatar
    Daniel January 4, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

    joyeagle:
    Daniel,
    Hey, I’ve been wanting to ask you …
    please don’t take this wrong, I am truly curious and not just poking fun.I’ve read many of your posts over the months and I know you despise not only birthers, but conservatives of my ilk in the republican party.
    I wonder, what is it that you LIKE about the republicans, what platform of republican distinguishes them from Democrats that keeps you in the party and voting that way.
    Like I said, I am honestly curious

    No offense taken, and thank you for asking,

    I answered pretty much the same question awhile back on another thread, so rather than typing it all out again I’ll try to find it and link or copy.

    DOC:

    Any chance you might be able to help? The blog search isn’t really that useful for this sort of thing.

  134. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

    joyeagle: No … can’t prosecute anything, it is legal murder in America. That is what we want to change. I don’t think the women are the criminals. It is the doctors committing the crimes. The women are victims in this.

    Some women may be victims, many are not. Sure, there may be undue pressure by some to have a pregnancy ended but that by itself is no argument against a right to chose. Anytime there is a right to chose, their is a possibility of pressure and influence. A right to vote comes with the influence and pressures of the advertisements, peer pressures, spousal pressure. Does this make the right to vote somehow evil?

    If women, make an informed decision to have a pregnancy terminated, they are not necessarily a victim and thus you cannot hide behind such a generalization to avoid addressing the principles for which you stand. If these women do make an informed decision and they show no undue influence or regrets, they cannot be claimed to be victims in any meaningful manner. Or we could consider many a criminal a victim of circumstance… That sounds very progressive a position in some ways πŸ™‚

    As to doctors, again they have the right to refuse to engage in abortion but also are protected by law when assisting. I find it hardly objectionable that doctors, pharmacists have a right to conscience but also a right to engage in practices that may be objectionable to some. This includes a right to privacy which covers in my opinion abortion as well as euthanasia.

  135. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 2:42 pm #

    Well, the pressure that most of their affidavits/testimonies spoke of was having maternal instinct kick in on the way to abortion clinic, but being forced by a man into the clinic, and strapped down and forced to go through it by the “doctors”.
    It is an industry that wants to be protected.
    Contraception is available, legal and free … and doesn’t require murder. That is a strawman argument.

    nbc: Some women may be victims, many are not. Sure, there may be undue pressure by some to have a pregnancy ended but that by itself is no argument against a right to chose. Anytime there is a right to chose, their is a possibility of pressure and influence. A right to vote comes with the influence and pressures of the advertisements, peer pressures, spousal pressure. Does this make the right to vote somehow evil?

  136. avatar
    Daniel January 4, 2012 at 2:46 pm #

    joyeagle:
    Daniel,
    Hey, I’ve been wanting to ask you …
    please don’t take this wrong, I am truly curious and not just poking fun.I’ve read many of your posts over the months and I know you despise not only birthers, but conservatives of my ilk in the republican party.
    I wonder, what is it that you LIKE about the republicans, what platform of republican distinguishes them from Democrats that keeps you in the party and voting that way.
    Like I said, I am honestly curious

    Found it.

    I share traditional Republican values of, for example:

    1. fiscal responsibility, of which one important aspect is that everyone pays their fairshare.

    2. That Government works for the people, which includes letting Government do what Gov does best, and Business do what Bus does best. One of the main Gov roles is to protect the people from the excesses that unscrupulous businesses are prone to, while allowing responsible business to work as unfetterd as is reasonably possible, while establshing enough reasonable regulations as to ensure a level playing field.

    3. That freedom of religion includes all religions, and includes equal freedom for the non-religious. That a person’s religion or philosophy should not be a barrier to the pursuit of LLH.

    4. That the US must NOT attempt to manipulate, through foreign policy or trade, the progression of other countries who generally seek to abide by the welfare of their citizen’s or neighbors. That the US should be ready to offer assistance to people of good will everywhere. That we should keep our damn noses out of other people’s business. This is one point where we have failed miserably.

    There are others, but in short the current Republican party seems to have abandoned many of the ideals that it traditionally held, in favor of the tripe that the neo-cons and Evangelicals have injected. I find myself continually embarrassed but the antics of the neocon elite/teabaggers idiots who seem to be running the show.

    I’m a Republican though, and I’d rather fight than switch, and leave what’s left of the Grand Lady to the dogs.

  137. avatar
    sfjeff January 4, 2012 at 2:46 pm #

    joyeagle: No … can’t prosecute anything, it is legal murder in America. That is what we want to change. I don’t think the women are the criminals. It is the doctors committing the crimes. The women are victims in this. Remember Roe v Wade, the lady who fought for her “abortion rights” in that was Norma McCorvey. She leads a group opposing it. She has thousands upon thousands of affidavits from women who have had abortions that have been traumatized by it and oppose it now. A large number of them were forced into it. It is not about women’s rights or contraception. </P

    If I hire a person to whack my wife, am I murderer or not? I do believe there are women were coerced into having abortions, though I doubt there are many who were physically forced- but I recognize that abusive husbands/boyfriends/pimps/parents could coerce a woman into having an abortion.

    I just have never met one. I have only had a few women tell me that they have had an abortion- but in each case it was an agonizing, personal and very independent decision. I do not understand the rational that the doctor would be a murderer but the woman who engaged the doctor would not be. If the doctor is a murderer, then the woman is one too. Even the woman who chose to abort the fetus who was the result of her being raped would be a murderer.

    I hate to get into arguments about abortion because in the end- I really am against abortion. But I am against women dieing more, and against women being forced to carry a child against their will more.

    If I could stop every abortion in the world, without endangering any woman's life, and without forcing any woman to carry a child in her body against her will- I would do so.

    In the end, if I have to decide between the law allowing save legal abortions, and a potential law that results in my daughter going off and dieing due to an illegal abortion without my knowledge- I will go for safe legal abortions.

  138. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 2:46 pm #

    Again moving the goalposts. I understand. Yes, the 14th Amendment declares citizenship, following what had been the practice since the signing of the Constitution and before. The 14th Amendment was declaratory of these principles, but by reiterating them, made it impossible for states to circumvent.

    The quote

    The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual.”

    addresses the power of Congress to deal with the issue of loss of citizenship and expatriation. The Courts have been significantly limiting the power of Congress to take away a person’s citizenship. In Rusk the Court further limited Congress’s power

    A native-born citizen is free to reside abroad indefinitely without suffering loss of citizenship. The discrimination aimed at naturalized citizens drastically limits their rights to live and work abroad in a way that other citizens may. It creates indeed a second-class citizenship. Living abroad, whether the citizen be naturalized or native born, is no badge of lack of allegiance, and in no way evidences a voluntary renunciation of nationality and allegiance. It may indeed be compelled by family, business, or other legitimate reasons.

    So it’s clear that at least your presumption that President Obama somehow lost his citizenship is unfounded by these precedents. It is also helpful to understand that native and natural born are used quite interchangeably for obvious reasons.

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson: The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals derived their opinion by referring to Schneider v Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)

    The rights of the native born are derived from Subsection 1, 14th Amendment. The rights of the Naturalized citizen is derived from statute codified by the Congress.

    “The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights.”

    No person has the right to be classified as a Natural born citizen using any definition proffered. Georgia ballot eligibility can only be determined by establishing who is not eligible, i.e. naturalized U.S. citizens, a U.S. citizen under the age of 35, a U.S. Citizen who has not lived in the U.S. for fourteen years.

  139. avatar
    Majority Will January 4, 2012 at 2:47 pm #

    Daniel: No offense taken, and thank you for asking,

    I answered pretty much the same question awhile back on another thread, so rather than typing it all out again I’ll try to find it and link or copy.

    DOC:

    Any chance you might be able to help? The blog search isn’t really that useful for this sort of thing.

    Daniel December 7, 2011 at 2:59 pm #

    Scientist: Daniel:If I may be so bold as to ask you, it seems to me that you don’tshare any of the views of the current Republican party.You have just disagreed with their most cherished economic position, that taxes must never, ever, under any circustances be raised on the wealthy.You have previously indicated you don’tshare their theocratic Christianist views.You don’t share their anti-science, anti-reality views.I haven’t seen that you share their foreign policy views (though I can’t really say what the current Republican foreign policy views are except to oppose anything Obama is for and support anything Obama is against).So exactly which current Republican views do you share?

    I share traditional Republican values of, for example:

    1. fiscal responsibility, of which one important aspect is that everyone pays their fairshare.

    2. That Government works for the people, which includes letting Government do what Gov does best, and Business do what Bus does best. One of the main Gov roles is to protect the people from the excesses that unscrupulous businesses are prone to, while allowing responsible business to work as unfetterd as is reasonably possible, while establshing enough reasonable regulations as to ensure a level playing field.

    3. That freedom of religion includes all religions, and includes equal freedom for the non-religious. That a person’s religion or philosophy should not be a barrier to the pursuit of LLH.

    4. That the US must NOT attempt to manipulate, through foreign policy or trade, the progression of other countries who generally seek to abide by the welfare of their citizen’s or neighbors. That the US should be ready to offer assistance to people of good will everywhere. That we should keep our damn noses out of other people’s business. This is one point where we have failed miserably.

    There are others, but in short the current Republican party seems to have abandoned many of the ideals that it traditionally held, in favor of the tripe that the neo-cons have injected. I find myself continually embarrassed but the antics of the neocon elite/teabaggers idiots who seem to be running the show.

    I’m a Republican though, and I’d rather fight than switch, and leave what’s left of the Grand Lady to the dogs.
    (source: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/12/the-occasional-open-thread-birther-blanket-bingo/)

    Also similar comments:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/are-conservatives-more-conspiracy-minded/

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/12/new-poll-results-most-iowa-republicans-are-idiots/

  140. avatar
    Daniel January 4, 2012 at 2:49 pm #

    joyeagle: Contraception is available, legal and free … and doesn’t require murder.

    neither does abortion… speaking of strawman arguments.

  141. avatar
    Majority Will January 4, 2012 at 2:51 pm #

    Daniel:
    You beat me to it. Sorry for the repost.

  142. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 2:54 pm #

    Thanks for finding and taking the time to repost. I see I would agree with you on every point except for your disgust for Tea Party.
    I also don’t like overeach, neocon foreign policy, but I find that more reflective of “establishment” republican than tea party.
    Any chance you could support a Ron Paul candidate?

    Daniel: Found it.

    I share traditional Republican values of, for example:

    I’m a Republican though, and I’d rather fight than switch, and leave what’s left of the Grand Lady to the dogs.

  143. avatar
    Daniel January 4, 2012 at 2:56 pm #

    joyeagle: Well, the pressure that most of their affidavits/testimonies spoke of was having maternal instinct kick in on the way to abortion clinic, but being forced by a man into the clinic, and strapped down and forced to go through it by the “doctors”.

    Yes we’ve all heard those claims, but funny how we rarely hear of those same “victims” reporting their kidnapping, assault, unlawful confinement, and unauthorized medical procedure reported to the police….

    We used to hear the same schlock back during the Satanic Panic of the 80’s where it was claimed that 60,000 people a year were being murdered by Satanists, but strangely enough, none of the “former Satanists” who claim to have witnessed, or even committed those murders ever got around to turning themselves in, good Christians that they supposedly are.

    If you have knowledge of Women being abducted, and forced to undergo abortions against their will, on a frequent and ongoing basis, I expect you to contact the police, and then quote us the file number… otherwise it’s nothing more than religious propaganda.

  144. avatar
    Daniel January 4, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

    joyeagle:
    Thanks for finding and taking the time to repost.I see I would agree with you on every point except for your disgust for Tea Party.
    I also don’t like overeach, neocon foreign policy, but I find that more reflective of “establishment” republican than tea party.
    Any chance you could support a Ron Paul candidate?

    Thank you. I choose not to divulge my voting prefences “for”, at this time, although I may, from time to time, divulge my “against” choice, at my discretion.

  145. avatar
    Daniel January 4, 2012 at 3:00 pm #

    Majority Will:
    Daniel:
    You beat me to it. Sorry for the repost.

    S’ok, I like seeing my own words in print more than once ;=)

  146. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 3:01 pm #

    In order to establish eligibility for the Presidency, there are three constitutional requirements that need to be met. The ruling you point to did not say that there is no right to have one to be considered a NBC, just that there is no right to have one to be considered a NBC under any proposed interpretation thereof.

    Reminding you again of the ruling

    Even liberally construed, Mr. Craig’s claim is not grounded in a constitutional or federal question: there is no such “right” (a) to have courts adopt his proffered legal definition, (b) to be classified as a citizen pursuant to that definition, or (c) to obtain certification of the status he attempts to define.

    Since native born and naturalized have the same rights, Craig has no foundation for his claims. Since Craig was arguing ‘natural born’ it is clear that the court considers the two equivalent. Now if Craig had been a presidential candidate he may have had a better position but even there, the Constitution does not provides one with a right to be considered natural born citizen unless such comes with an injury.

    The court addresses this when observing

    Mr. Craig’s amended complaint does not describe any unlawful discrimination that he has suffered or will suffer due to the allegedly “extensive opportunities of immigrants and naturalized citizens to obtain, protect, and preserve their status.”2

    Footnote 2 reads

    In any case, the Supreme Court long has rejected the notion that
    naturalized citizens may or should possess rights different from those of other
    citizens under the law:
    We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native
    born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are
    coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the
    “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.
    While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from §
    1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized
    citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by
    Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a
    member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen,
    and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a
    native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or
    abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is
    to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this
    power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual.”
    Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165-66 (1964) (quoting Osborn v. Bank of U.S.,
    22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 827 (1824)); see also Osborn, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 827-
    28 (“[The naturalized citizen] is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen,
    except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”)

    It helps understanding the arguments before jumping to flawed conclusions

  147. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 3:02 pm #

    Daniel: neither does abortion… speaking of strawman arguments.

    If life starts at conception then some forms of contraception would indeed be considered to be murder under such a position.

  148. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 3:02 pm #

    I can appreciate your skepticism on this … I’ve never heard the Satanic murder claim. However, your response sounds a little unfamiliar with the traumatized female psyche. Most rapes go unreported. Did you know that? Do you believe that? Yes, women are abused, traumatized and most often do not report due to shame and guilt. Norma McCorvey and the Justice Foundation do have thousands of legal affidavits from the women stating so. My wife met many of them at a rally in Dallas in 2003ish. She heard their stories directly from them. Of course, it was many, many years removed by the time most of them came to terms with it and were willing to talk about it.

    Daniel: Yes we’ve all heard those claims, but funny how we rarely hear of those same “victims” reporting their kidnapping, assault, unlawful confinement, and unauthorized medical procedure reported to the police….

    If you have knowledge of Women being abducted, and forced to undergo abortions against their will, on a frequent and ongoing basis, I expect you to contact the police, and then quote us the file number… otherwise it’s nothing more than religious propaganda.

  149. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2012 at 3:03 pm #

    joyeagle: It’s really pretty simple if you use logic. Either abortion is murder and anyone participating in it (doctor, pregnant woman, putative father) is a partcipant in a murder for hire conspiracy, or, abortion is not murder. You can wiggle and squirm, but that is the reality.

    As for the “thousands and thousands traumatized” there have been many miilions of abortions since 1973, so you are talking 0.1% at most. The vast majority of women who have early-term abortions are not “traumatized” in the slightest. They go on to lead perfectly normal lives, including having children when they are ready to do so. In fact, it is like the thousands of women who Herman Cain didn’t harass for every one that he did.

    And, just for fun, let’s look at your track record. Taken in by the birthers. Taken in by Herman Cain. Just consider the possibility that you are being taken in by the Pope, preachers and other members of the anti-abortion lobby who may have a hidden agenda that they have yet to fill you in on.

  150. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 3:03 pm #

    That’s fair. Thanks.

    Daniel: Thank you. I choose not to divulge my voting prefences “for”, at this time, although I may, from time to time, divulge my “against” choice, at my discretion.

  151. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 3:05 pm #

    joyeagle: Any chance you could support a Ron Paul candidate?

    He has some policies I support but his position on the role of government and his faith in the ‘free market’ are offensive to my sensibilities as it ignores the reality. In the end, he is, like the progressives in the Democratic Party, a stabilizing force but he is too far out there with his positions on the limited role of government.

  152. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 3:08 pm #

    Scientist, you are just so angry at me.
    Yes, I’ve acknowledged my error in judgment here, when pointed out and convinced. I find that rare in others.
    I have yet to be convinced I was hoodwinked by Herman Cain. It’s possible, but less than likely. I am not catholic, so haven’t heard anything the Pope has said. I haven’t gone to church in years, so I doubt it is the preachers. I don’t know who this anti-abortion lobby is you speak of, but I would suggest it is simply a love for life, especially that of the innocent.

    Scientist:
    joyeagle:It’s really pretty simple if you use logic.Either abortion is murder and anyone participating in it (doctor, pregnant woman, putative father) is a partcipant in a murder for hire conspiracy, or, abortion is not murder.You can wiggle and squirm, but that is the reality.

    And, just for fun, let’s look at your track record.Taken in by the birthers.Taken in by Herman Cain.Just consider the possibility that you are being taken in by the Pope, preachers and other members of the anti-abortion lobby who may have a hidden agenda that they have yetto fill you in on.

  153. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 3:10 pm #

    joyeagle: I can appreciate your skepticism on this … I’ve never heard the Satanic murder claim. However, your response sounds a little unfamiliar with the traumatized female psyche. Most rapes go unreported. Did you know that? Do you believe that? Yes, women are abused, traumatized and most often do not report due to shame and guilt.

    You are now conflating rape with abortion. The two have incredibly different foundations. Yes most rapes will go unreported. Of course, a woman who is raped is abused and traumatized, but this should not be nilly-willy extrapolated to abortion which is fundamentally not abusive although it may be traumatic as an experience. Rather than making abortion illegal, why not make sure that the women are not unduly forced into a decision by others?
    I understand your concerns but I find your arguments lacking in logic as they conflate two very different concepts.

    Do I agree with you that women who have had abortion may be traumatized by the decision? Yes. Do I accept that some women may have been forced into abortions? Yes. Do I find this to be a sufficient reason to therefor outlaw abortion? Nope.

  154. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 3:11 pm #

    Oh … I meant that for Daniel, as a Republican, but ok … thanks. I assumed you would not be voting republican.
    At any rate, thanks for the respectful dialogue today.

    nbc: He has some policies I support but his position on the role of government and his faith in the free market’ are offensive to my sensibilities as it ignores the reality. In the end, he is, like the progressives in the Democratic Party, a stabilizing force but he is too far out there with his positions on the limited role of government.

  155. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 3:12 pm #

    joyeagle: Scientist, you are just so angry at me.

    He is pointing out a logical flaw in your position. It’s not anger as much as frustration.

    Yes, I’ve acknowledged my error in judgment here, when pointed out and convinced. I find that rare in others.

    I cannot find fault with your beliefs but I would like to point out that this is ill supported by any evidence.

  156. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 3:13 pm #

    I wasn’t confusing the two (rape/abortion). I was responding to Daniel’s skepticism over unreported Forced Abortions–which is an abuse as traumatic a violation as rape.

    nbc: You are now conflating rape with abortion. The two have incredibly different foundations. Yes most rapes will go unreported. Of course, a woman who is raped is abused and traumatized, but this should not be nilly-willy extrapolated to abortion which is fundamentally not abusive although it may be traumatic as an experience. Rather than making abortion illegal, why not make sure that the women are not unduly forced into a decision by others?
    I understand your concerns but I find your arguments lacking in logic as they conflate two very different concepts.

    Do I agree with you that women who have had abortion may be traumatized by the decision? Yes. Do I accept that some women may have been forced into abortions? Yes. Do I find this to be a sufficient reason to therefor outlaw abortion? Nope.

  157. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 3:17 pm #

    joyeagle: Oh … I meant that for Daniel, as a Republican, but ok … thanks. I assumed you would not be voting republican.

    Huntsman I could support. A centrist much like Obama. The main stream republican party’s fascination with protecting companies and the upper 1% while showing a total disregard for the middle class is what forces me to vote democratic. The fact that we have a President with some good solid policies makes this choice easier but the president in many ways is not that different from a centrist Republican. His efforts on health insurance reform, using a ‘Republican’ concept is a good first step. His foreign policies have been right on target. So there is a lot of positive to vote for a re-election.
    His work on banking and finance reform has been frustrated with the Republican’s refusal to appoint a director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Again, the Republicans have shown their distaste for protection of the 99%

    That is enough a reason for me to not vote republican at this time. They cater to the rich and powerful and have no plan or interest in the middle class of our Nation.

  158. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 3:20 pm #

    joyeagle: I wasn’t confusing the two (rape/abortion). I was responding to Daniel’s skepticism over unreported Forced Abortions–which is an abuse as traumatic a violation as rape.

    You were using reporting of rape as a foundation for your claims of unreported forced abortions.

    Rape is per definition traumatic. Abortion can be traumatic but cannot be easily compared to rape which is something that was forced on you. Now, you and I agree that there likely are those who have been forced to make a choice of abortion, which is traumatic and devastating, but that should not be a foundation to oppose abortion itself.

    I hope you see the difference here.

  159. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 3:22 pm #

    Santorum and his wife were forced to accept an abortion when they had to make a choice as to whether or not she was going to survive. Traumatic… Sure… But not a reason to make abortion illegal. There may be so many circumstances that ‘force’ a woman to choose abortion, that it requires more logic and reason before trying to equate them to rape or the rate of reporting.

  160. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2012 at 3:27 pm #

    joyeagle: I don’t know who this anti-abortion lobby is you speak of, but I would suggest it is simply a love for life, especially that of the innocent

    I have no problem with anyone who says “I would never have an abortion. I think they are morally wrong” That is their absolute right. It’s when they attempt to dictate to others that I have a problem.

    Laws against abortion are like laws against alcohol or drugs. Unenforcable and producing outcomes worse than what they attempt to stop. Ireland tried making abortions illegal. They tried prosecuting young women who went to England to get them. It didn’t work. Abortion is now legal in Ireland. Why do you refuse to learn from other’s experience?

  161. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2012 at 3:30 pm #

    nbc: Huntsman I could support. A centrist much like Obama. The main stream republican party’s fascination with protecting companies and the upper 1% while showing a total disregard for the middle class is what forces me to vote democratic

    You should check out Huntsman’s economic policies. They are actually MORE conservative than many of the othr Republicans. He supports the Ryan plan to eviscerate Medicare 100% and opposes even a penny of extra revenue to balance the budget. He is no centrist, really.

  162. avatar
    ellen January 4, 2012 at 3:30 pm #

    I believe that smrstrauss would probably appreciate any help from constitutional experts over at http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=909525113481608842&page=1&token=1324496414797

  163. avatar
    J. Potter January 4, 2012 at 3:35 pm #

    Scientist: I have no problem with anyone who says “I would never have an abortion. I think they are morally wrong” That is their absolute right. It’s when they attempt to dictate to others that I have a problem.Laws against abortion are like laws against alcohol or drugs. Unenforcable and producing outcomes worse than what they attempt to stop. Ireland tried making abortions illegal. They tried prosecuting young women who went to England to get them. It didn’t work. Abortion is now legal in Ireland. Why do you refuse to learn from other’s experience?

    …not to mention our own experience. Roe v Wade is analogous to the repeal of prohibition.

    Many things in life are undesirable; few of them can be improved by pretending they don’t exist/will go away.

  164. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 3:45 pm #

    Some relevant research to consider

    Robinson GE, Stotland NL, Russo NF, et al. , Is there an “abortion trauma syndrome”? Critiquing the evidence. Harv Rev Psychiatry 2009; 17(4) :268-90.

    Abstract

    The objective of this review is to identify and illustrate methodological issues in studies used to support claims that induced abortion results in an “abortion trauma syndrome” or a psychiatric disorder. After identifying key methodological issues to consider when evaluating such research, we illustrate these issues by critically examining recent empirical studies that are widely cited in legislative and judicial testimony in support of the existence of adverse psychiatric sequelae of induced abortion. Recent studies that have been used to assert a causal connection between abortion and subsequent mental disorders are marked by methodological problems that include, but not limited to: poor sample and comparison group selection; inadequate conceptualization and control of relevant variables; poor quality and lack of clinical significance of outcome measures; inappropriateness of statistical analyses; and errors of interpretation, including misattribution of causal effects. By way of contrast, we review some recent major studies that avoid these methodological errors. The most consistent predictor of mental disorders after abortion remains preexisting disorders, which, in turn, are strongly associated with exposure to sexual abuse and intimate violence. Educating researchers, clinicians, and policymakers how to appropriately assess the methodological quality of research about abortion outcomes is crucial. Further, methodologically sound research is needed to evaluate not only psychological outcomes of abortion, but also the impact of existing legislation and the effects of social attitudes and behaviors on women who have abortions.

  165. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 3:50 pm #

    Scientist: You should check outHuntsman’s economic policies.They are actually MORE conservative than many of the othr Republicans.He supports the Ryan plan to eviscerate Medicare 100% and opposes even a penny of extra revenue tobalance the budget.He is no centrist, really.

    Ouch… so much for Huntsman… He sounded superficially to be quite acceptable… Sigh…

  166. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 4:00 pm #

    No. That is not the kind of “forced” I was talking about in my context. I was talking about women being physically dragged into a clinic. Strapped down by doctors while screaming, “NO, No, NO … I don’t want to do it, I want my baby!” But being physically forced. My wife tells me that was at least half of their stories she talked to.

    nbc:
    Santorum and his wife were forced to accept an abortion when they had to make a choice as to whether or not she was going to survive. Traumatic… Sure… But not a reason to make abortion illegal. There may be so many circumstances that force’ a woman to choose abortion, that it requires more logic and reason before trying to equate them to rape or the rate of reporting.

  167. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 4:14 pm #

    Ah, pure hearsay and speculation… Yes, I see… Surely you do realize that anecdotal evidence, while interesting has some real problems associated with them?

    I have no doubt that such stories have some foundation in reality, but I cannot determine to what extent they are relevant. As I already stated, there needs to be a more rigorous source than this.

    I found one research paper citing that 65% of the women felt pressured by others, but that is a far cry from being forced.

    joyeagle: No. That is not the kind of “forced” I was talking about in my context. I was talking about women being physically dragged into a clinic. Strapped down by doctors while screaming, “NO, No, NO … I don’t want to do it, I want my baby!” But being physically forced. My wife tells me that was at least half of their stories she talked to.

  168. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2012 at 4:15 pm #

    joyeagle: No. That is not the kind of “forced” I was talking about in my context. I was talking about women being physically dragged into a clinic. Strapped down by doctors while screaming, “NO, No, NO … I don’t want to do it, I want my baby!” But being physically forced. My wife tells me that was at least half of their stories she talked to.

    Sorry, but I simply don’t believe that happens. No doctor would do that anymore than they would take out an appendix without a signed consent form. You are a very, very gulliblle person who will believe ANYTHING if it fits with his personal ideology.

    And no one here is defending forced abortions or forced anythiong, except you, who are defending forced pregnancy to term.

  169. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 4:16 pm #

    Letter writer Sue Martensen makes the outlandish claim — falsely attributed to the Guttmacher Institute — that a third or more of abortions obtained by U.S. women are coerced. I’d like to set the record straight.

    In fact, Guttmacher research clearly refutes Ms. Martensen’s claim: When asked in a 2004 study, only one-half of one percent of women — who could give multiple reasons — said their most important reason for obtaining the abortion was that their partner or husband wanted them to have it. And even that, obviously, does not mean that the woman herself did not agree with the decision.

    Now one may object to this self reporting but one cannot use a study to support a claim of 1/3 when the data shows 0.5% and even that number is inappropriate.

    Concern on the part of anti-abortion activists that some women may be coerced into having an abortion only cloaks their real agenda — which is to deny all women the ability to have an abortion. Or to put it differently: They are quite comfortable with coercing women, as long the coercion goes in the direction they prefer — forcing women to continue pregnancies that they themselves do not want to carry to term.

    Reproductive coercion in any form should be condemned. The decision to have an abortion — or not to have an abortion — ultimately must be the woman’s alone, after her consultation with her doctor, partner, family, faith leader or all of the above.

    That’s my concern too.

  170. avatar
    Klaus Stemplemeyerson January 4, 2012 at 4:25 pm #

    nbc:

    Since native born and naturalized have the same rights, Craig has no foundation for his claims.

    The rights of the native born and a Naturalized US Citizen are not the same, as you suggest. As SCOTUS makes clear, the rights of the native born and a Naturalized US Citizen are of the same dignity and coextensive, only a Natural born citizen is eligible to be POTUS.

    The rights of native born are derived from Subsection 1 of the 14th Amendment. The rights of Naturalized citizen are derived from US Federal Code.

    Schneider v Rusk (quoting Osborne)
    “The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual.

    The Constitution does not define a Natural born citizen. Congress does not have the power to legislate who is and is not a Natural born citizen. SCOTUS commentary on his NBC status applies only to WKA. WKA did not proffer a definition of NBC, but SCOTUS commented WKA was NBC. Taken literally, it would men only the native born with parents who are Chinese citizens at birth are NBC.

    As the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals points out in Craig v U.S., neither the Congress nor an individual has the right to proffer a definition of NBC. This is further supported by the nonbinding resolution for the NBC status of Juan McCain. Any legislation passed by the Congress and signed into Law attempting to define NBC would have been found to be unconstitutional. A definition of NBC can only be obtained through a constitutional amendment. Until then, States can only restrict their ballots to individuals who are not eligible for POTUS and ignore any proffered definition of NBC.

  171. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2012 at 4:31 pm #

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson: Until then, States can only restrict their ballots to individuals who are not eligible for POTUS

    So, you believe only those not eligible should be on the ballot? Hassan wins by default!

  172. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 4:32 pm #

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson: The rights of the native born and a Naturalized US Citizen are not the same, as you suggest. As SCOTUS makes clear, the rights of the native born and a Naturalized US Citizen are of the same dignity and coextensive, only a Natural born citizen is eligible to be POTUS.

    The rights of native born are derived from Subsection 1 of the 14th Amendment. The rights of Naturalized citizen are derived from US Federal Code.

    Yes, there is a minor and unlikely and in Craig’s case irrelevant difference but remember that Craig was arguing that as a natural born citizen he was somehow deprived of some right. The court observed that the rights of that native born (an equivalent concept) and the naturalized are the same observing (citing Rusk and Osborn)

    Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165-66 (1964) (quoting Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 827 (1824)); see also Osborn, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 827-28 (“[The naturalized citizen] is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”).

    The Constitution does not define a Natural born citizen. Congress does not have the power to legislate who is and is not a Natural born citizen. SCOTUS commentary on his NBC status applies only to WKA. WKA did not proffer a definition of NBC, but SCOTUS commented WKA was NBC. Taken literally, it would men only the native born with parents who are Chinese citizens at birth are NBC.

    That is not what US v Wong Kim Ark found, they found that any child born on soil, with minor exceptions, is a natural born citizen and thus so is Wong Kim Ark. WKA did proffer a definition of NBC by going all the way back to English common law and showing how this common law has been guiding US interpretation of the term.

    Simple logic. It would be helpful for you to familiarize yourself more with these cases.

  173. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2012 at 4:36 pm #

    nbc: Now one may object to this self reporting but one cannot use a study to support a claim of 1/3 when the data shows 0.5% and even that number is inappropriate.

    Yes, coercion as in “my husband or boyfriend said he would leave if I had the baby”. In a few cases that might happen. But, by that standard, we should ban sex, because a husband or boyfriend might threaten to leave if he didn’t get enough sex. We should also ban money because people use it to manipulate people into doing things they wouldn’t do for free. We should also ban food, because people might bribe other people with a nice dinner.

    Let’s just make joyeagle happy and ban everything.

  174. avatar
    Daniel January 4, 2012 at 4:38 pm #

    joyeagle:
    I can appreciate your skepticism on this … I’ve never heard the Satanic murder claim.However, your response sounds a little unfamiliar with the traumatized female psyche.Most rapes go unreported.Did you know that?Do you believe that?Yes, women are abused, traumatized and most often do not report due to shame and guilt.Norma McCorvey and the Justice Foundation do have thousands of legal affidavits from the women stating so.My wife met many of them at a rally in Dallas in 2003ish.She heard their stories directly from them.Of course, it was many, many years removed by the time most of them came to terms with it and were willing to talk about it.

    There’s a bit of a difference between a rape where it’s her word against his, and an abduction and kidnapping resulting in a large group of people performing a medical procedure against her will. Are you trying to tell us none of those tens of thousands of nurses ever turned themselves in?

    There’s no statute of limitations on kidnapping. If there are thousands of these cases, as you allege, why are there not at least hundreds of arrests? Why are there no police reports? Or are they complicit too? Why are there not reports from other Doctors who would have known? Why are there no formal investigations?

    Or is the entire world complicit on this conspiracy to kidnap women to perform abortions on them?

    That’s the problem with fringe conspiracy theories. They never stand up the the logistical details it would take for them to be real.

    If what you say is true, why have you not reported it to the police? If you have heard those women relate being kidnapped, it’s your duty as a citizen to make the report, whether you think it will help or not. If you really believe this crap, I mean really believe it, then you have to do the right thing. I expect to see a police file number, or an admission that you have nothing.

  175. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 4:38 pm #

    Scientist: Sorry, but I simply don’t believe that happens. No doctor would do that anymore than they would take out an appendix without a signed consent form. You are a very, very gulliblle person who will believe ANYTHING if it fits with his personal ideology.

    Well…

    FLINT, Michigan — A teenager is accusing a Flint abortion doctor and his assistant of holding her down and covering her mouth as the doctor forced her to have an abortion after she screamed for them to stop.

    In a lawsuit filed in June, the teen said she came to WomanCare of Flint, also known as Feminine Care Center, for an abortion on April 9, 2008, but alleges that she changed her mind before the doctor started the procedure.

    The doctor claims that he had already started the procedure… I am not sure what happened to the case.

  176. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 4:45 pm #

    “The Dallas federal judge denied Norma McCorvey’s motion after only two days without adequately considering the 5,347 pages of affidavits from over one thousand women harmed by abortion and scientific experts,” Parker explained.

    Compared to the number of abortions, that numbers is quite low and does not describe how many were forced or how many felt traumatized afterwards.

  177. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 4:46 pm #

    Hi joyeagle,

    Just getting back and a chance to see today’s developments, after a long and exciting night last night.

    Interesting point you made about weather – the clear weather did support a broader turnout and you probably have a point that bad weather would have restricted some of those who were “less enthusiastic”. Then again Romney’s campaign was wisely offering transportation (as was Paul’s & Perry’s), so I think they could have overcome that hurdle but Santorum’s turnout might have been blunted by snowstorms.

    I’m surprised to find out today that Rick Perry decided to get back in this. I guess the Texan is going to attempt a last stand, Alamo style, in SC. It will be interesting to see if he can still convince anyone to donate to his campaign after his performance and his speech last night. Then again, this race has been nothing but unexpected twists and turns, so we’ll see.

    Anyways, the dynamic of Rick Perry deciding to stay in seems to be one that is good for Romney and bad for Santorum and Gingrich….at least at this point it does.

    Bachmann is out. No surprise there.

    Ron Paul – I suspect that 3rd only seems to be a buzzkill for his followers in the immediacy of their own raised expectations. His speech afterwords was mostly uneventful and fairly meandering with a mixture of emotions (dour Rand stands out in the background, conveying disappointment in contrast to a crowd that still displayed strong enthusiasm). However, there was one interesting dyamic at the very end of it that will probably be the take away and clip from that with staying power and that I suspect will start to make the rounds – the soldier in uniform that came on stage and made a powerful case that Paul’s views best represent our young soldiers… quite a surprising development and a dynamic that they have a chance to try to capitalize on.

    As time passes, his 3rd place performance will be viewed more favorably from the rear view mirror, as it was statisticly still impressive by every measure:

    In 2008, the overall turnout numbers were quite similar (119,118 ballots cast then and 122,138 was the final turnout for 2012). Enough so that a comparison between the repeat perfomers is worthy to assess…and also a good baseline to look at comparisons between that year’s field and this one’s.

    In 2008, Romney came in 2nd in IA with 30,021 votes (25.19%) and carrying 24 counties.
    In 2012, Romney came in 1st in IA with 30,007 votes (24.57%) and carrying 17 counties.

    Looking at that, Romney actually got *less* support than he did in 2008! Definitely a Red Flag on how “inevitable” he is going forward…

    In 2008, Paul came in 5th in IA with 11,841 votes (9.93%) and carrying only 1 county. (Note: he still got 2 IA delegates out of that in 2008)
    In 2012, Paul came in 3rd in IA with 26,219 votes (21.47%) and carrying 17 counties!

    So Paul’s comparitive performance is a signifant growth in strenght from his 2008 effort. He actually won as many counties as Romney did in 2012.

    Paul’s base is also quite loyal and motivated and don’t seem to be deterred in their support by criticism or being ignored, under normal circumstances, so those drawn to him are still more likely to seize on any silver lining and build momentum on that. He has a very strong base of support and infrastructure in place in NH and that is a state that has always had a strong independent Libertarian bent. So I still think the dynamics are in place for him to put in a very solid performance there and that he’s got the staying power and organization to be an important factor in this race for quite some time.

    joyeagle:
    G,
    I didn’t watch the play by play last night.Our son came in … on break from Afghanistan.We watched Ted Haggard’s wife swap and then a rented movie … but I did occasionaly check the status.
    I am not sure that Ron Paul won’t lose traction after this … I think expectations were raised that he might win.I for one was more likely to support him if he placed first and showed promise.Now I am more likely to go Santorum.I guess the weather wasn’t cold enough for Paul to win it.

  178. avatar
    jayHG January 4, 2012 at 4:50 pm #

    joyeagle: No … can’t prosecute anything, it is legal murder in America. That is what we want to change. I don’t think the women are the criminals. It is the doctors committing the crimes. The women are victims in this. Remember Roe v Wade, the lady who fought for her “abortion rights” in that was Norma McCorvey. She leads a group opposing it. She has thousands upon thousands of affidavits from women who have had abortions that have been traumatized by it and oppose it now. A large number of them were forced into it. It is not about women’s rights or contraception. Scientist: En anglais, SVP…If you truly consider it murder, then I hope you won’t shy away from prosecuting EVERY woman who has an abortion for 1st degree murder (since it is pre-meditated) and from imposing the death penalty.There is no “sort-of” regarding murder, after all.None of this wussy “We’ll shut down a few clinics or go aftera few docs.” stuff.Murder is serious, my friend.And no going overseas to have an abortion.Nopey-nope.Make that murder too and arrestthe ladies when they arrive at the border.If they stay overseas, send the Seals to grab them.After all, can’t letpeople get away with murder, can we?Are you a person of REAL convictions or a poseur, sir.

    See this is why folks are calling you out here. You want to skip the woman who gets the abortion and go for the doctor, who couldn’t and wouldn’t do an abortion if he didn’t have a pergnant woman asking for one. Do you see how ludicrious that is?? How is the woman a victim. She wants an abortion. That is her right to have one because abortion is legal in the United States today. That doesn’t make her a victim and it doesn’t make the doctor a murderer. It’s two American citizens minding their own business making their own individual choices. Isn’t this what republicans are supposed to be all about…. freedoms and individual responsibilities…..sheesh. It’s my business if I want to have a baby or not. Not Rick Santorum, not you and certain not the U. S. Government.

    Abortion is not legal murder. It is abortion. END OF STORY. Your take on abortion is a moral take which you are entitled to, and you can call it murder, but you have to know that when I call you a liar for calling it murder, I’m right and you’re wrong.

  179. avatar
    sarina January 4, 2012 at 4:55 pm #

    According to the birthers a person needs two American citizen parents to be Natural born citizen. I don’t see them whining about Santorum’s parents. His father was an Italian immigrant and his mother is half Irish and half Italian.

  180. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 4:57 pm #

    I think it is unwise to apply general election sensibilities to the GOP’s internal Primary race.

    I would not casually dismiss Santorum and his chances. We’ll have to see how he stands up and develops under the scrutiny of top tier status and if he can capitalize on his win and get an organizational structure in place. I will withhold judgment until we’ve seen how he handles these things over the coming days. He definitely has a good opportunity to make a case for being the “Conservative” candidate in a race that seems to really be about searching for “Anything But Romney” amongst the actual voting base…

    He did an outstanding job in his post-IA speech last night and displayed an ability to broaden his platform and appeal considerably as well as to convey sincerity and passion. He could grow into a much stronger force and contender that people have assumed.

    nbc: Santorum made a good showing grabbing the vote from the evangelical taliban’ and has no chance at the national level.

  181. avatar
    Daniel January 4, 2012 at 4:59 pm #

    nbc: Well…

    The doctor claims that he had already started the procedure… I am not sure what happened to the case.

    That it may happen occasionally, rarely is possible.

    That it happens thousands of times, as a matter of policy, is ridicuulous.

    Same thing as the Satanic Panic I previously referred to. That an individual may have gone off the deep end and murderer some one in a stylized “Satanic Ritual”, is believeable. That there is a world-wide conspiracy of thousands of organized Satanic “covens” murdering 60,000 people a year and leaving no trace of their activities…. is ridiculous.

  182. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 5:00 pm #

    G:
    Hi joyeagle,

    Just getting back and a chance to see today’s developments, after a long and exciting night last night.So I still think the dynamics are in place for him to put in a very solid performance there and that he’s got the staying power and organization to be an important factor in this race for quite some time.

  183. avatar
    jayHG January 4, 2012 at 5:04 pm #

    joyeagle: Well, the pressure that most of their affidavits/testimonies spoke of was having maternal instinct kick in on the way to abortion clinic, but being forced by a man into the clinic, and strapped down and forced to go through it by the “doctors”.It is an industry that wants to be protected.Contraception is available, legal and free … and doesn’t require murder. That is a strawman argument.

    joyeagle you can’t be serious. You offer up some affidavits (and I’ll take your word here) against the millions of women who have had or even considered abortion as PROOF POSITIVE that abortion causes all kinds of emotional trauma.

    And I don’t think for one minute that any woman was foreced into a clinic and held down for an abortion. If this happened, it was some crazy family who for whatever their equally crazy reasons may have forced some woman to have an abortion.

    All that is straight out of the “let’s bomb a clinic” rule book for stopping abortion because “I think it’s wrong and I want to impose my will on folks who disagree with me and don’t think it’s murder but a legal olption open to them here in America.” How dare they!!!!

  184. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 5:04 pm #

    Joyeagle – Please do not fall prey to making the very same mistake you are charging others with and targeting a whole group with outrageous accusations.

    Sorry but there are no DNC talking points here, so leave them and any other inappropriate over-generalizations out of it, please.

    NBC, an individual poster, made the “taliban” analogy. Stick to taking issue with it with him directly. …and with any other individuals that might say the same.

    You are guilty of the same by unjustly broadening his statements to apply them to any larger group.

    joyeagle:
    So I see the DNC talking points is to label any person of faith as “Taliban” … you must be agnostic secularist to be appropriate to “progressive” america.Fortunately, the American people won’t see it that way, and the talking points won’t stick.By the way, for the record, Taliban simply tranlates as “students.”

  185. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 5:07 pm #

    oops …

    G, Thanks. Nice rundown. I can’t take credit for the weather suggestion … that was a Mike Huckabee prediction. Yeh, I was surprised after the Perry speech and trip home to Tx, that he would decide to press on. I agree with your assesment on that impact too. Although, it is possible with his remaining money (I’ve heard 2 million) he could disparage the front runner without garnering any support from his conservative rivals … but not likely. I can’t remember if I heard it from you or on TV, but I was surprised to find out that Santorum has organization in every county of New Hampshire already too.
    And, I do think there is still a chance that Paul has a better than expected showing in New Hampshire, being an open primary and everything. It was interesting news too, about his constituents staying late last night for the delegate vote … being the caucus itself was non-binding.
    I like Bachmann. I wish she would have done the wiser thing, and dropped out and endorsed Santorum in the last couple of days. Her votes would have pushed him over the top, and she could have been the conservative “hero” and taken credit for his win. I think if Santorum has any chance, he’ll need the endorsements of the Palins, Cains etc. Although I think any of those is highly unlikely.
    I enjoy your intelligent and objective assesment of it all. Ever think of going into “the business” (journalism)?

    joyeagle:

  186. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 5:07 pm #

    I thought that was both well phrased and also makes a very strong and solid reasoned case of explanation.

    I support and agree with the position and reasoning you just outlined.

    nbc: But you are right, you have a choice not to engage in certain acts, you have a choice of faith but you do not have a right to force your beliefs onto me, certainly not when they are religious beliefs and the path to force them onto me is through legislation. The US never was and never should be a Christian’ nation. It may have been a nation that recognizes the importance of faith, but it never should become a theocracy. God have mercy on us…
    There is a good reason why religion and politics should remain separate.

  187. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 5:10 pm #

    Right. Ok.

    G:
    Joyeagle – Please do not fall prey to making the very same mistake you are charging others with and targeting a whole group with outrageous accusations.

    Sorry but there are no DNC talking points here, so leave them and any other inappropriate over-generalizations out of it, please.

    NBC, an individual poster, made the “taliban” analogy. Stick to taking issue with it with him directly. …and with any other individuals that might say the same.

    You are guilty of the same by unjustly broadening his statements to apply them to any larger group.

  188. avatar
    jayHG January 4, 2012 at 5:12 pm #

    Daniel: Yes we’ve all heard those claims, but funny how we rarely hear of those same “victims” reporting their kidnapping, assault, unlawful confinement, and unauthorized medical procedure reported to the police….We used to hear the same schlock back during the Satanic Panic of the 80β€²s where it was claimed that 60,000 people a year were being murdered by Satanists, but strangely enough, none of the “former Satanists” who claim to have witnessed, or even committed those murders ever got around to turning themselves in, good Christians that they supposedly are.If you have knowledge of Women being abducted, and forced to undergo abortions against their will, on a frequent and ongoing basis, I expect you to contact the police, and then quote us the file number… otherwise it’s nothing more than religious propaganda.

    Okay, I responded to joyeagle’s claim of women being held down and forced into an abortion, etc., but this is a much better response. Thank you.

  189. avatar
    Majority Will January 4, 2012 at 5:13 pm #

    sarina:
    According to the birthers a person needs two American citizen parents to be Natural born citizen.I don’t see them whining about Santorum’s parents. His father was an Italian immigrant and his motheris half Irish and half Italian.

    The birthers usually argue that if they parents became naturalized citizens before the child was born then it’s o.k. or some such b.s.

    Do we know when and if his parents became U.S. citizens?

    Has any birther asked for the documentation? Not to my knowledge.

    Do we know if those are his parents at all?

    You would think these birthers who are allegedly interested in upholding the Constitution would have all of the facts.

  190. avatar
    James M January 4, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

    joyeagle: I was talking about women being physically dragged into a clinic. Strapped down by doctors while screaming

    I would like to see any police report that names assailants, or any testimony from any malpractice suit where these allegations were made against any physician.

  191. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

    nbc: FLINT, Michigan — A teenager is accusing a Flint abortion doctor and his assistant of holding her down and covering her mouth as the doctor forced her to have an abortion after she screamed for them to stop.
    In a lawsuit filed in June, the teen said she came to WomanCare of Flint, also known as Feminine Care Center, for an abortion on April 9, 2008, but alleges that she changed her mind before the doctor started the procedure

    April 9, 2008, that’s almost 3 years ago now. Lawsuit filed in June-June of what year? Has the case been resolved? Have the allegations been proven? Any one can sue over anything.(see Taitz, Orly). I’m surprised at you for even citing such an allegation without any further proof.

  192. avatar
    James M January 4, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

    nbc:

    Santorum and his wife were forced to accept an abortion when they had to make a choice as to whether or not she was going to survive.

    I’m on the fence here. I believe if you truly have the strength of moral convictions, you should be allowed to choose to die rather than have an abortion. You are not obligated to kill in self defense — you are allowed to choose to die rather than kill in self defense. Likewise you should be allowed to choose to die rather than commit abortion. I don’t really follow the anti-abortion fanatics back up the road after they have already passed “abortion is murder” and try to come back from there to say “except [in any situation whatsoever]”. They’ve already passed that point and it’s too late to come back.

  193. avatar
    Majority Will January 4, 2012 at 5:37 pm #

    joyeagle: I was talking about women being physically dragged into a clinic. Strapped down by doctors while screaming

    That sounds more like an urban legend or a bad horror flick.

  194. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 5:38 pm #

    I very much enjoyed your analysis, but disagree with some of your conclusions.

    In general, the rural areas have always had more of a conservative leaning than urban centers. There is a lot that contributes to explaining that, but that is a whole topic of its own. For purposes here, let’s just accept it as a clear and pervasive dynamic.

    Of the candidates in this field, the GOP Establishment types are definitely settling towards Romney. The majority of the GOP base seems to be primarily Conservative and they are looking for their own candidate. The Ron Paul thing is a whole factor of its own, the only one that is actually broadening the current GOP base and trying to include more “Libertarian-leaning” positions.

    This cycle has seen most of the rest of the contenders fighting over that Conservative faction of the vote. Therefore, those votes are being split and diluted, leading to all the bubbles and busts, as there is a struggle to pick a winner in that category. In many ways, there simply is a mini Conservative/Deep Red election fight taking place here within the broader dynamic of the GOP Primary.

    The true question of where this will go still remains outstanding while that faction’s choices remain so split and unsettled. As this progresses, the field becomes winnowed and the choices for the Conservative candidate narrow. Once the dynamic of the overall race gets down to no more than 2 options for that Conservative vote, then some dynamic stability will emerge as those voters also settle and coalesce around a choice… similarly to how the establishment is starting to settle and coalesce around Romney.

    The big red flag for Romeny remains – the only stability he projects is that his range of support doesn’t change much…but more worrisome to the GOP is that it so far has had an extremely low ceiling.

    When the IA results produce a winner who can only capture 1/4 of the vote, that is a concern. If that isn’t *the* lowest first place finish there in history, it is certainly close. Huckabee was able to obtain 34% in a similar sized field just 4 years ago and I believe that was a low 1st place total as well.

    The point is, a candidate in the “lead” who can only pull low double digit support is certainly not as “inevitable” as they want people to believe…and in fact, appears extremely weak.

    You really have to look at the totals of at least Santorum, Perry and Bachmann as a whole to see the “floor” of where the Conservative vote power seems to be. From IA’s results, that represents 40% of the votes cast. If you add Gingrich to that, you’re over 53%.

    Romney’s total, even if you gave him Huntsman’s support and the “other” votes, still shows only 25% support for the “Establishment”.

    What I’m getting at is that Romney’s support seems to be on pretty shaky grounds from that standpoint. If the Conservative base coalesces around a candidate they can easily take control and win this race. Heck, their combined vote power seems to be MORE THAN DOUBLE the Establishment’s…so they can even control the race by splitting their votes amongst two “Conservative” finalists to battle it out…

    J. Potter: To an extent, the same dualities seen in the same between the major parties are now manifesting themselves within the Reds. I’ll be interested in seeing whether this trend continues. If it does, this process suddenly looks more predictable! The Deep Red candidate did well in a rural state. Across the country as a whole, whoever the Deep Reds favor in rejection of Romney won’t have a chance. Further, whichever faction of the Red party can maintain focus on 1 candidate the longest will win out in the end. Romney’s support has been rock-solid. Paul’s support varies, but has a core of long-term diehards. The passion of the Deep Reds, however, has a 2-week lifespan.

  195. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 6:11 pm #

    Stop. *sigh* Here we get to the heart of how people’s own biases constantly muddle the picture based on perceptions that don’t always hold up…and REALITY.

    Please go to the full context of Obama’s statement at the time and explain exactly how you feel he “denounced” such people with that statement. Because he did not “denouce” them at all. That is simply the take-away offense you are over-senitively predisposited to come away with, because you do not perceive him as part of your “tribe”. Whatever.

    How come people perceived as devoutly “Christian” can get away with making the same statements and it is seen as a sign of affirmation / support and not “denouncing”?

    You can quibble that he could have used a better phrase than “cling”. Fair enough and we all are guilty of poor word choice from time to time. But beyond that minor quibble, which really only distracts from the actual point, is there anything UNFACTUAL about his statement? There isn’t. You are simply perceiving offense to something because of your own tribal biases and twisting what he actually was talking about into something other than it ever was.

    joyeagle: He does denounce Christian’s who “cling to their bibles.”

    Again, you seem to be stuck on a contradictory hypocricy of application of this principle only through the lense of your own “tribal” biases.

    Your statement is simply a mischaracterization “straw man” of what most progressives I know actually want – and that is NO favoritism or advocation for one faith over another. In other words, to support what is enshrined in our very own Constitution.

    Try this test on yourself next time in order to check your own pre-set biases: Take any public expression of “faith” as you call it by government officials that you seem “fine” with but upset that others “took issue” and imagine if that person was not coming from your preferred blend of Christian faith and was instead Muslim or Wiccan or something else that stirs a “gut” negative reaction inside you. Substitute that faith into the same context and I bet all of a sudden you don’t like it very much and are up in arms in alarm about it…

    *sigh*. Yes, in useless overgeneralizations, there are individuals on all sides of both political and religious ideology that take offense too easily and get their panties into a bunch on some specific issue and as a result, cause an equally defensive over-reaction and over-application in those on the opposite side of the fence.

    But when it comes down to it, the freedoms to worship as you please ARE protected PRIVATE rights. Those rights can ONLY be protected because our SECULAR government was wise enough to NOT advocate favortism of one religion over another. That is a necessary balance that PROTECTS and RESPECTS *all* of our different personal beliefs.

    I’m really sick of this false meme of Christian “victimhood” out there that has nothing at all to do with any real “suppresion” by our government and really comes down to individuals over-reacting to poor word choices or behaviors in OTHER individuals and then somehow mis-applying that to a broader governmental structure instead of just being able to take issue with the actual people behind the offense.

    Coming from a Christian background myself, I’ll jokingly add that such overblown “persecution complexes” are probably explainable in any religious structure that worships martyrdom… Yes, I make light of it, but there seems to be some grain of truth in my joke…doesn’t there…

    joyeagle: I think it is OK for a politician to be a man of faith and express that too. Like Washington and Lincoln and others. It doesn’t matter. But “progressives” want to prohibit the free expression of faith by politicians.

  196. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 6:13 pm #

    Well said! I wholeheatedly agree!

    That is the true issue and heart of the matter in these situations.

    nbc: There is a big difference between free expression of faith by a politician and having their faith impose restrictions on others. It’s the latter to which most reasonable people would object.

  197. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 6:19 pm #

    My wife talked to the ladies … sure you can call them liars, but like nbc quotes above, Norma McCorvey (Roe) has afidavits from over a thousand of them.

    Majority Will:
    joyeagle: I was talking about women being physically dragged into a clinic. Strapped down by doctors while screaming

    That sounds more like an urban legend or a bad horror flick.

  198. avatar
    jayHG January 4, 2012 at 6:22 pm #

    joyeagle: No. That is not the kind of “forced” I was talking about in my context. I was talking about women being physically dragged into a clinic. Strapped down by doctors while screaming, “NO, No, NO … I don’t want to do it, I want my baby!” But being physically forced. My wife tells me that was at least half of their stories she talked to.

    Didn’t happen……and frankly, I don’t think that any woman told that to your wife. I think you’re trying to make your case here and it’s kind of ridiculous. If this had happened, someone among all those women would have gotten the police involved and someone else would have been arrested. We live in the United States, and no one can make you have an abortion or keep you from having one…..both options are available to you – HAVE ONE, DON’T HAVE ONE.

    So I don’t believe you and frankly, I think you’re lying on your wife.

  199. avatar
    JD Reed January 4, 2012 at 6:22 pm #

    If he peeked at Intrade’s numbers on Wednesday, Rick Santorum must have felt like Rodney Daingerfield – not getting any respect at all. Intrade is a vanue that enables people to legally bet on political races, by buying shares in the future outcome of a political event, such as a presidential election. Obama was over 50 percent, and Romney had surged above 40 percent, to my knowledge for the first time. This obviously leaves no room for anyone else to escape single digits, but what’s remarkable is that Santorum had not mustered a whole single diigit. He was trading at 9/10 of 1 percent.
    Go figure.

  200. avatar
    Daniel January 4, 2012 at 6:27 pm #

    joyeagle:
    My wife talked to the ladies … sure you can call them liars, but like nbc quotes above, Norma McCorvey (Roe) has afidavits from over a thousand of them.

    Has Ms McCorvey delivered these thousand affidavits to the police? If not, have you reported Ms McCorvey to the police for withholding information regarding multiple felonies?

  201. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 6:27 pm #

    I agree with your assessment, and hope that we conservatives do coalesce sooner than later. However, as I am sure you would agree, I don’t think the 53% conservative vs establishment holds up everywhere outside IA.

    G:
    I very much enjoyed your analysis, but disagree with some of your conclusions.

    What I’m getting at is that Romney’s support seems to be on pretty shaky grounds from that standpoint.If the Conservative base coalesces around a candidate they can easily take control and win this race.Heck, their combined vote power seems to be MORE THAN DOUBLE the Establishment’s…so they can even control the race by splitting their votes amongst two “Conservative” finalists to battle it out…

  202. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 6:28 pm #

    joyeagle: My wife talked to the ladies … sure you can call them liars, but like nbc quotes above, Norma McCorvey (Roe) has afidavits from over a thousand of them.

    Well, yes… thousands of them… But it is unclear who are really ‘them’ and what their stories really are all about. Hearsay is so hard to turn into helpful data.

    Even accepting the 1000 or so ladies, this would be very small number compared to the 12 million abortions in the last 10 years or so. While their stories should not be ignored, they do not serve to make grandiose claims about abortion and the impact on women. But I do understand that this is a new tack the anti-choice groups have taken, with only limited success so far.

  203. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 6:32 pm #

    Daniel: That it may happen occasionally, rarely is possible.

    I am not convinced that the 1000 or so reports by the former Roe v Wade plaintiff have any direct relevance to how many were ‘forced’ or ‘forced screaming and kicking’. Without good data, these are just-so stories.

  204. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 6:33 pm #

    I think his quote in context speaks for itself:
    “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
    And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

    G:
    Stop.*sigh*Here we get to the heart of how people’s own biases constantly muddle the picture based on perceptions that don’t always hold up…and REALITY.

    Please go to the full context of Obama’s statement at the time and explain exactly how you feel he “denounced” such people with that statement.Because he did not “denouce” them at all.That is simply the take-away offense you are over-senitively predisposited to come away with, because you do not perceive him as part of your “tribe”.Whatever.

    Again, you seem to be stuck on a contradictory hypocricy of application of this principle only through the lense of your own “tribal” biases.

    Your statement is simply a mischaracterization “straw man” of what most progressives I know actually want – and that is NO favoritism or advocation for one faith over another.In other words, to support what is enshrined in our very own Constitution.

    Try this test on yourself next time in order to check your own pre-set biases:Take any public expression of “faith” as you call it by government officials that you seem “fine” with but upset that others “took issue” and imagine if that person was not coming from your preferred blend of Christian faith and was instead Muslim or Wiccan or something else that stirs a “gut” negative reaction inside you.Substitute that faith into the same context and I bet all of a sudden you don’t like it very much and are up in arms in alarm about it…

    *sigh*.Yes, in useless overgeneralizations, there are individuals on all sides of both political and religious ideology that take offense too easily and get their panties into a bunch on some specific issue and as a result, cause an equally defensive over-reaction and over-application in those on the opposite side of the fence.

    But when it comes down to it, the freedoms to worship as you please ARE protected PRIVATE rights.Those rights can ONLY be protected because our SECULAR government was wise enough to NOT advocate favortism of one religion over another.That is a necessary balance that PROTECTS and RESPECTS *all* of our different personal beliefs.

    I’m really sick of this false meme of Christian “victimhood” out there that has nothing at all to do with any real “suppresion” by our government and really comes down to individuals over-reacting to poor word choices or behaviors in OTHER individuals and then somehow mis-applying that to a broader governmental structure instead of just being able to take issue with the actual people behind the offense.

    Coming from a Christian background myself, I’ll jokingly add that such overblown “persecution complexes” are probably explainable in any religious structure that worships martyrdom…Yes, I make light of it, but there seems to be some grain of truth in my joke…doesn’t there…

  205. avatar
    jayHG January 4, 2012 at 6:34 pm #

    Majority Will: The birthers usually argue that if they parents became naturalized citizens before the child was born then it’s o.k. or some such b.s.Do we know when and if his parents became U.S. citizens?Has any birther asked for the documentation? Not to my knowledge.Do we know if those are his parents at all?You would think these birthers who are allegedly interested in upholding the Constitution would have all of the facts.

    You’re being silly here, and not paying attention to the birthers like you should, MW. Everyone knows that white people Presidents and wannabe Presidents are ASSUMED to be natural born citizens. That parents have to be citizens things should not be questioned. It’s the scarry black people from whom you need documentation…….silly person……

  206. avatar
    jayHG January 4, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

    James M: I would like to see any police report that names assailants, or any testimony from any malpractice suit where these allegations were made against any physician.

    You won’t because it didn’t happen.

  207. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 6:37 pm #

    That’s ok. I think you are woefully ignorant of the psychological oppression of women in our society. To all the questions of where are the police reports, I point again to the majority of rapes that are unreported in this country. To the number of sex slaves in this country. To the number of abused women in this country. Sure you can say, “it just doesn’t happen. Your lying.” Ok. Believe that.
    i am not suggesting this is the majority of abortions by any stretch. But it does happen here.

    jayHG: Didn’t happen……and frankly, I don’t think that any woman told that to your wife.I think you’re trying to make your case here and it’s kind of ridiculous.If this had happened, someone among all those women would have gotten the police involved and someone else would have been arrested.We live in the United States, and no one can make you have an abortion or keep you from having one…..both options are available to you – HAVE ONE, DON’T HAVE ONE.

    So I don’t believe you and frankly, I think you’re lying on your wife.

  208. avatar
    Majority Will January 4, 2012 at 6:37 pm #

    jayHG: You’re being silly here, and not paying attention to the birthers like you should, MW.Everyone knows that white people Presidents and wannabe Presidents are ASSUMED to be natural born citizens.That parents have to be citizens things should not be questioned.It’s the scarry black people from whom you need documentation…….silly person……

    Oops. Point taken. πŸ˜€

  209. avatar
    gorefan January 4, 2012 at 6:37 pm #

    This is off topic but our old friend Dean Haskins has been promising a big lawsuit in Hawaii. Well, he appears to be keeping his word. Filed on January 3rd, 2012 comes the case of …drum roll please

    Duncan Sunahra v. Dept. of Health SOH et al. Case #: 1CC12-1-000006

    To recap:

    Orly said in her New Hampshire filings that Virginia Sunahara’s BC number is out-o- line for someone born the same day as President Obama. This was based on the COLB obtained by the Sunahara family.

    She recently added Virginia Sunahara’s original BC on her list of things she wants Hawaii DOH to allow her to inspect. She reported that made Dean Haskins mad.

    And now apparently, Virginia’s brother has sued to get a LFBC. LOL, that idiot Haskins has not been following the revelations of BC cert numbers from August, 1961.

    What we know to date:

    Ah’Nee – 09945 – August 23rd
    Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – August 5th
    Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638 – August 5th
    Obama, Barack – 10641 – August 4th
    Sunahara, Virginia– 10xxx – August 4th
    Waidelich, Stig – 10920 – August 5th

    I betting 10840 for Virginia.

    Disclaimer: unfortunately young Virginia passed away only one day after her birth, how this might affect the numbering of her birth certificate is unknown. My assumption is that it would not affect it. But we will just have to wait and see.

  210. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 6:38 pm #

    Wow… I totally take issue with your suppositions here and your trying to place improper correlations between unrelated issues.

    It can fairly be said that people’s beliefs and faith shape their decisions. That is simply how the mind works and sees the world. That is utterly different than making the implication that those values RELY on a specific faith or that religion is the justification for the value concept in the first place.

    The concept of All men are created equal is enshrined in the founding principals of our nation – its basis in our law stems from the Declaration of Independence, not the Bible:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ,…

    The term Creator was a very specific intentional choice, as it is a very neutral term that can be broadly interpreted to mean different things to different people. It does NOT say God. For someone of a Christian faith, they will naturally equate Creator with God, as that is how they view the world and that is their right. For those of other faiths, the same truism applies. Even for those who are just spiritual or who see no intelligent deity in the picture, Creator is a term that still has meaning – it simply can represent nature or the law of physics that allow the universe to work in the first place.

    Nor do morals, values or principals require a faith-based component in order to exist, apply or hold true. A person of faith will naturally relate to the justification of that specific moral, principal, value through the lense of their beliefs. People of other faiths will make that connection through the morality stories inherent within their particular set of beliefs. Such things simply are the path for different people to relate and understand various concepts, but they are neither the root nor a necessary requirement for such concepts themselves. Non believers also have morals, values and principals and do not require any specific faith or religiion in order to grasp them, hold them or understand them.

    So in summary, what Lincoln imposed was justified because it was enshrined as as a core principal within our very government “instituted among Men, deriving [its] just powers from the consent of the governed” . The basis for his justification was simply already inherent in the roots of our societal structure and law. How his personal faith led him to wrestle over the issue is neither necessary nor relevant to justifying it or putting it into effect.

    To make the leap from that to somehow connect it to the Pro-Life movement today seems such an irresponsible and utterly unrelated stretch that I won’t even bother to get into it. To do so is to really derail this conversation into completely unrelated side tangents.

    joyeagle: Lincoln imposed his values of all men are created equal on the whole country. It was based on his religious values. No different than pro-life candidates today.

  211. avatar
    Daniel January 4, 2012 at 6:45 pm #

    nbc: I am not convinced that the 1000 or so reports by the former Roe v Wade plaintiff have any direct relevance to how many were forced’ or forced screaming and kicking’. Without good data, these are just-so stories.

    Agreed. There is an apparent need for some people to hyper-demonize things they disagree with. They don’t like Abortion, so they invent thousands of kidnappings and assaults. They don’t like Muslims, so they invent broad conspiracies of Muslim takovers with Sharia law. They don’t like Witches, so they invent Satanic Ritual abuse, they don’t like Democrats, so they invent organized liberal treason. They don’t like a black man in the Whitehouse, so they invent the birther conspiracy. They don’t like Jews, so they invent Zionist Illuminati…. oh, sorry, that was last generation. This generation is all chummy with Isreal now.

    Of course the problem with over demonizing someone you don’t agree with, is that it says more about you than it does about the people you choose to hate. It’s also counter-productive. The \only people who will believe such outlandish stories, like thousands of kidnappings for forced abortions, are people already in the choir. Reasonable people who may not have quite made up their minds about the subject are more apt to look at the hyper-demonization and conclude, reasonably so, that the people doing it are exaggerating because they have a lack of substance. Given that they are more likely to choose the other side.

    The anti-abortion side would likely have a lot more support, if they would knock off the made-up horror stories and just stick to the facts, and the opinions.

  212. avatar
    jayHG January 4, 2012 at 6:47 pm #

    joyeagle: That’s ok. I think you are woefully ignorant of the psychological oppression of women in our society. To all the questions of where are the police reports, I point again to the majority of rapes that are unreported in this country. To the number of sex slaves in this country. To the number of abused women in this country. Sure you can say, “it just doesn’t happen. Your lying.” Ok. Believe that.i am not suggesting this is the majority of abortions by any stretch. But it does happen here.

    Someone up thread already called you out on these phantom dragging kicking and screaming women into places to have abortions — equating this to rape are not the same.

    I’m sure some women do regret having an abortion. SO WHAT!!?? I regret the extra brownie I ate for lunch. Doesn’t mean I get to make a one brownie for lunch edit.

    You’ve been called out as a liar with these horror stories of free American women being forced kicking and screaming to have abortions and it’s just not true. There is no way that someone would be in big trouble – doctors, folks holding them down, etc. even if it’s boyfriend/mom/dad/whatever. This is why you anti-abortion folks will never be able to take away a woman’s right to choose……..you try to do it with wild lies and fear. AIN’T GONNA WORK………

  213. avatar
    Daniel January 4, 2012 at 6:52 pm #

    joyeagle:
    That’s ok.I think you are woefully ignorant of the psychological oppression of women in our society.To all the questions of where are the police reports, I point again to the majority of rapes that are unreported in this country.To the number of sex slaves in this country.

    I’m not talking about that at all. I am directly pointing to your claim that you have and McCorvey have knowledge of multiple felonies and conspiracy to commit felony, numbering in the thousands. You further claim that McCorvey has in her possession, first hand accounts of thousands of felonies, and you claim you have knowledge that she has them.

    What I am putting to YOU directly, is why has McCorvey not delivered these affidavits to the police, and why have you not reported her failure to do so to the police?

    It is your duty to do so. It is the law that you do so.

    Unless you don’t really believe this crap either…

  214. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 6:54 pm #

    Having more carefully read the statement I now conclude that the thousand or so ‘affidavits’ are not about forced abortions perse but about the impact abortions have had on women. While Norma McCorvey and the Justice Foundation are trying to make a scientific case based on the work by David Reardon, whose work has been called in question by various researchers.

    Joyeagle may do well to inform himself about these issues a bit better and let us know the true numbers and what they believe they tell us about abortion?

  215. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 7:03 pm #

    A clearer picture emerges

    Another key argument in support of McCorvey’s motion was that abortion actually hurts women. The McCorvey briefs were supported by affidavits from women responding to four standardized questions: 1) “[W]hen and where [did] your abortion occur[ . . . ?];” 2) “[H]ow has your abortion affected you?;” 3) “[W]hat would you tell a woman considering an abortion?;” 4) “[W]hat would you tell a court that believes abortion should be legal?,,65 The women were reached through forms on anti-choice websites, including the website for the Elliot Institute, an organization founded by the leading proponent of the faux science “post-abortion syndrome. ,,66 In each affidavit, the women described negative emotional and/or physical consequences they claimed were caused by their abortions. The answers typically mention “depression,”67 “guilt,,,68 “low self-esteem,,,69 “mental anguish,” “shame,,,7o and “emotional” and “spiritual” harm.71

    and

    The affiants also made claims about the physiological harms of abortion. However, instead of simply describing personal experience, they offered a steady stream of unsubstantiated and unqualified medical opinions about a wide range of physical harm purportedly caused by the abortion procedure. According to the affidavits, abortion causes miscarriages in subsequent pregnancies, sterility,14 “[p]re-term pregnancies, abnormal paps, and abnormal periods. , ,75 In response to the question about what women would tell a court that believes abortion should be legal, one woman wrote, ” I would tell of the hidden statistics of the many long-term effects women suffer in relation to having an abortion such as miscarriage, reproductive problems, and the mental anguish of taking a life. ,,76 Other claims made in the affidavits were that abortion was linked to breast cancer;77 that abortion led some women to attempt suicide or have suicidal thoughts;78 and that abortion caused drug and alcohol problems.79

    These are not supported by any scientific study and in fact contradicted by many.

    Quite a different picture…

  216. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    Read the paper from which I quoted above here

  217. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 7:09 pm #

    So Joyeagle, any comments given the new evidence?

  218. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

    Now here is where I think I see the heart of what you are trying to take issue with it and so I’m going to leap in and take your side, but try to present the argument in a more balanced way than how you’ve expressed your objections so far…

    I think the best way to do so is just express some general truisms and hope that you and others will read the list and be able to agree…or even just be able to more focus the back & forth quibble without broadening it into more unfounded generalizations on each other…

    Let’s just agree to define the type of “extremist” we are referring to here as someone who not only holds a very strict and narrow position on a particular issue, but also who is intolerant of others who don’t hold to their same positions and therefore ALSO seek to impose their positions onto others.

    There. That being said, “extremists” can be found in all ranges of the political, ideological and religious perspective. Where we must be careful with one another is not attributing the bad actions of a few extremists to broader groups, which may merely have some similar (yet not necessarily as narrow) personal views, but who may not subscribe to the intolerance of others or imposition of those views onto others who don’t share them.

    There. That being said, from Joyeagle’s perspective, the following are correct and should be respected…


    Not all people of faith are extremists.
    Not all Christians are extremists.
    Not all Evangelicals are extremists.

    Are there extremists amongst those categories above? Yes. That too needs to be acknowledged. More importantly – and where legitimate criticism exists to targeting a broader set with the ill actions of their extreme minority – is that these broader circles of groups too often seem to “give a free pass” to the extremists within their own “tribe” and only take issue with extremists they feel outside of their “tribe”.

    That is an issue of real concern and where it can be justified in painting a broader brush of guilt by association…or more appropriately, guilt by accessory (i.e. sheltering and protecting the guilty instead of denouncing them or casting them out).

    Now, to NBC’s point. I agree with where he specifically targets Dominionism within the subset of Christian Evangelicalism as being extremists. That whole particular group of adherents, by definition of their intent is appropriately labeled “extremist”:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

    Dominionism is a term used to describe politically active conservative Christians that are believed to conspire and seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action, especially in the United States, with the goal of either a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.

    Therefore, I think, for sake of keeping focus, the use of the term Dominionism is an apt and correct term we should use for the specific type of Evangelical Christian behaviors which are a concern and which represent the extremists amongst that subset of the population.

    joyeagle: So how is any fundamentalist, christian politician (I mean that we all would know on the national stage) … or Rick Santorum specifically, trying to impose restrictions on others? Is it simply abortion?

  219. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 7:13 pm #

    Well said! I strongly agree!

    Daniel:
    The problem has always been, that if our elected representatives allow their most restrictive religious beliefs to dictate their public policy, that only those who happen to choose to share those religious beliefs will be represented.

    In a country where voters run the gamut of religious belief and non-belief, the President, who must remain impartial for the benefit of ALL citizens, must either equally represent ALL of them, or must, as is the only practical solution, remain religiously neutral in discharging his or her office.

  220. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2012 at 7:21 pm #

    bernadineayers: paul’s a liberal

    Libertarian in US parlance. After all, liberal is often incorrectly used to describe people who see the government as playing an important role. In the real world, yes, he is more of a liberal but at the extreme side of the spectrum. These terms have been use too loosely. That’s like calling Obama a Marxist πŸ˜‰

  221. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 7:30 pm #

    Pat Robertson continues to be one of the most irresponsible and vile “false prophets” out there.

    He definitely deserves to be classified as an Extremist.

    He also deserves all the criticism and ire he gets for being so irresponsible with the platform of a pulpit and forum.

    Such irresponsible behavior from such a position of “religious authority” is an inherent danger and can easily incite or goad others into taking “matters into their own hands”.

    In terms of the discussion Lupin recently invoked on the inherent dangers and limits of Free Speech and how the US & Europe handle such things…

    Pat Robertson’s pulpit and forum combined with his words would probably violate the legal limits of hate speech and dangerous speech in some of those European Countries.

    I hate to say it, but when you look at the irresponsible and unjustifiable behavior of someone in Pat Robertson’s position and his words… I personally would favor classifying him as an example that crosses the line into punishable and inciteful “hate speech” in and does NOT deserve toleration nor protection in a free society.

    Arthur:
    On Tuesday night, Pat Robertson revealed that God told him who the next president will be, but that he’s “not supposed to talk about that,” leaving his followers toguess at God’s choice. Robertson did allow that God’s not smiling on Obama’s agenda and that only with “overwhelming prayer” will the U.S. elect a leader with the strength to keep America from failure.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/pat-robertson-president-2012-god_n_1181669.html?ref=mostpopular

    Article includes video.

  222. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 7:33 pm #

    Well said! I completely agree!

    nbc: Sure, different people may have had different reasons to allow for the concept of abortion but we should not confuse their motivations with the argument that underlines the majority of people’s decision to recognize the right of the woman. I doubt that one would find many who would in present day support abortion for genocidal reasons or racist reasons…

    So let’s not confuse the issue here by flawed logic.

  223. avatar
    sfjeff January 4, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

    One thought as to the women joyeagle’s wife spoke to, who claimed to have been forced into abortions. I do understand her point that women in the United States are sexually abused, and those so abused are reluctant to come forward. But there are thousands of rape cases prosecuted each year based upon the testimony of exactly such women, and I would suspect hundreds if not more based upon the testimony of former sex slaves. So why aren’t there hundreds or thousands of such cases of women who were ‘forced to have abortions’.

    Here is my speculation. The one thing these women all have in common here is that they came together in regret for the abortions that they had. I personally think that much of these stories are likely to be rationalizations from women who regretted the choices that they made- and that consciously- or unsciously- they have re-written their own story to make them less complicit in what happened. Given that you mention that these women told their stories years and years after it happened makes this all the more likely. People re-write their stories all the time to make themselves less guilty about what they did.

    If they convince themselves that they were forced- they don’t have to blame themselves for the abortion.

  224. avatar
    J. Potter January 4, 2012 at 7:37 pm #

    G: I very much enjoyed your analysis, but disagree with some of your conclusions.

    G, First, thanks, happy you were able to find it amidst the eruption of concern here! This Open Thread could be called the Hot and Heavy edition πŸ˜‰

    Thanks also for the additional insight, we do have different reads on the chances of a far right candidate winning out!

    No need to go over the conservative rural v progressive urban split, not much new there, and I have lived it everyday, firsthand, intensely, since high school. My main point was how clear the trend, which has been so notable between the 2 parties, was inside of a single party’s results. And how it may continue to play out.

    In Iowa, a rural state, the two sides balanced. Even lumping the 6 main candidates together amongst the extremes, they balance. I don’t agree that Gingrich’s supporters will go to the Deep Reds. To me, I believe Romney-Gingrich-Huntsman supporters would align against Santorum-Perry-Bachman supporters, giving a vote total in Iowa of 48,700 Deep Red v. 47,000 Red. The pattern may well continue in other rural states. In sparsely populated states, I think Paul will do well, may even win a few over the Deep Red favorite.

    However, the delegate gold mines are the populous states, which have more and larger urban areas. In these states, as in the 2008 general, the conservatives will win the countryside, perhaps 90% of the geography, but lose the state, as all the “good parts” favor the more moderate candidate.

    Worse, the Deep Red sentiment has been fickle. Perhaps they have finally found their champion. If not, and their preference varies from state to state, Romney and Paul, with their organizational and fiscal advantages, will continue to pick up a steady number of delegates in contest after contest, with others picking up some here, some there. Old reliable will win this race….10 delegates from every state beats 20 from 20 states. If Santorum has indeed grasped the Deep Red standard, we may have a horse race here. For awhile, in the rural states anyway.

    Finally, as previously expected/explained in my Red anti-Paul conspiracy theory, at-large delegates are going to drift to Romney. So far that’s holding true. Romney has supposedly pocketed, overall, 18 delegates vs 8 for Santorum and 7 for Paul.

    Age and Money are (in more ways than one!) on Romney’s side. When Santorum says elections are no longer about money, he’s dreaming.

    PS–to steal a wit from Borowitz, last night’s results set a new record for fewest people deciding a US election, 8 people. That’s one less since the previous record, set in 2000, of 9. πŸ˜‰

  225. avatar
    J. Potter January 4, 2012 at 7:47 pm #

    A few more PS’s (haha)

    G isn’t the only Romney doubter … here’s a fun one.

    I know it’s a dull result, but it may bring my fantasy of a party splintering to pass. Everything about our competitive, winner-take-all political system favors a duality, but I’d love to see two things finally happen: a libertarian party emerge, and the Red’s 30-yr old “deal with the devil” come undone. For the former … maybe Ron Paul’s organization can merge with the existing Libertarian party, but I doubt it. It’s a personality cult to an extent, and will go when Paul does. For the latter, I’d like to see the Deep Reds follow their convictions and abandon the Reds, like a parasite that has outgrown its host. The 2 extremes of the GOP aren’t helping each other—or the rest of us!—while joined at the hip. If this happens, the new Deep Red party would probably fail, as the money would stay with the mother party. At least the separate entities would be able to pursue their interests with somewhat reduced infighting.

    (my use of “devil”, “personality cult”, and “parasite … host” are illustrative, not intended as insults)

  226. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 8:00 pm #

    Daniel, an excellent post.

    I for one would like to say that I pretty much share ALL of those traditional 4 values that you have espoused.

    I think it is fair for all of us to come to terms that neither of the main parties has succeeded in managing any of those 4 issues very well.

    Then again, those are goals to strive towards and such is the nature of reality that political actions and accomplishments will often fall short.

    So I personally take a more pragmatic and realistic view and look towards which party I feel currently is simply BETTER and MORE LIKELY to pursue policy in the direction I support…and not in the opposite direction.

    Personally, I feel the GOP has completely abandoned all 4 of the “values” you hold dear…and only applies some lip service to terms of “fiscal responsiblity”, when in fact the policies they actually want and push threaten such more than anything else.

    So I feel that for issues #1, #2 and especially #3, this are principals and values that now only have a home in the Democratic Party and that the current GOP’s direction is a bigger threat to each and every one of those than anything else.

    For #4…heck, that is an idea I support, but I recognize is tied up in a complex interconnected layer of geo-political concerns and actions that go back decades. So, in a sense, I can say that neither party really addresses this issue.

    Honestly, the closest current home for your value #4 is probably Ron Paul.

    But seriously, not that I want to advocate for the Democratic Party, (because I really am neither a fan nor cheerleader of them), but they are clearly the home of your value #3 and I think a strong argument can be made that their policy prescriptions are better for your values #1 and #2 as well.

    In any regard, today’s GOP not only has little connection to anything you espoused, but of greater concern, advocates policy positions is probably the greatest threat to all of those values you cherish.

    Realignment happens in politics all the time and history shows that such realignment happens within our major political parties every few decades or so, yet only the names remain the same. The Dixiecrats are mostly long gone and all became Republicans long ago. Same too with the “Reagan Democrats”. Just part of the GOP base today. No longer do either groups align or participate in today’s Deomocratic Party.

    Similarly, the Rockefeller wing of the GOP and even a certain extent of the Goldwater Republicans, no longer have a home there and can be found more firmly absorbed into today’s Democratic Party.

    Simply put, your values may be noble “traditional Republican values” and you may have loyally stayed with the Republican Party….but it left you a long time ago.

    Daniel: Found it.

    I share traditional Republican values of, for example:

    1. fiscal responsibility, of which one important aspect is that everyone pays their fairshare.

    2. That Government works for the people, which includes letting Government do what Gov does best, and Business do what Bus does best. One of the main Gov roles is to protect the people from the excesses that unscrupulous businesses are prone to, while allowing responsible business to work as unfetterd as is reasonably possible, while establshing enough reasonable regulations as to ensure a level playing field.

    3. That freedom of religion includes all religions, and includes equal freedom for the non-religious. That a person’s religion or philosophy should not be a barrier to the pursuit of LLH.

    4. That the US must NOT attempt to manipulate, through foreign policy or trade, the progression of other countries who generally seek to abide by the welfare of their citizen’s or neighbors. That the US should be ready to offer assistance to people of good will everywhere. That we should keep our damn noses out of other people’s business. This is one point where we have failed miserably.

    There are others, but in short the current Republican party seems to have abandoned many of the ideals that it traditionally held, in favor of the tripe that the neo-cons and Evangelicals have injected. I find myself continually embarrassed but the antics of the neocon elite/teabaggers idiots who seem to be running the show.

    I’m a Republican though, and I’d rather fight than switch, and leave what’s left of the Grand Lady to the dogs.

  227. avatar
    Majority Will January 4, 2012 at 8:23 pm #

    Didn’t Cain and Bachmann both claim they were given Divine Instruction by the Creator of the Universe to run?

    Maybe the message was “run . . . . in the next Boston Marathon” and they just weren’t paying attention.

  228. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 8:26 pm #

    I agree with you there on both points – not liking neocon policy and that it is more reflective of “establishment” than Tea Party.

    But this is a weird dynamic in play. I would have said that the “neo-cons” don’t have a wing of their own anymore… but lately MOST of the candidateshave taken up an extremely irresponsible position of saber-rattling and practically PUSHING to start a pre-emptive war with Iran!

    Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann… all clearly going way too “neo-con” in their outrageous positions and statements on this issue. These folks are not just being overly jingoistic but their irresponsible public policy statements can cause real world harm in enflaming international tensions too.

    Only Huntsman has been reasonable and responsible on the issue and only Ron Paul stands up to them in very stark contrast.

    Personally, I thought the Iran issue was the worst and weakest argument of Romney’s disappointingly frenetic yet insincere spouting of agenda talking points in his post IA speech last night.

    His criticisms of Obama’s position were so blatently weak and false that even I was wondering WTF??? Obviously, Mitt-Bot’s shameless ability to pander has utter disregard for his audience or the real world around him. Mitt had the audacity to criticize the president as “weak” and doing nothing and demand for actions that this adminstration has ALREADY TAKEN and even more embarassingly, has made major news for signing bold new sactions and keeping our warships positioned in bold defiance and opposition to Iran’s Persian Gulf threats….

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-01-03/iran-threatens-us/52354354/1

    So I was just blown away by how much of a shameless and blatent fool Romeny looks on that particular issue and realized just how much of a weak paper tiger he’ll be when he actually has to try to make such claims in a General Election or direct debate with Obama, and not just dealing with the safe protective bubble of the GOP, which will just give him a pass…

    So while I agree that the Establishment is clearly the home of the neo-cons… I have serious concerns of them succeeding in pushing the “Tea Party” aspects of their base that way too…

    joyeagle: I also don’t like overeach, neocon foreign policy, but I find that more reflective of “establishment” republican than tea party.

  229. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 8:28 pm #

    Well … cooking dinner now with the son, the one home from Afghan for four days. But, I was never suggesting all of her affidavits were forced abortions, but among. My wife met some the women who made those affidavits and she said about half of the 30 she talked to had that experience.
    I am not trying to convince anyone here … just a big tangent from disputing that believing Santorum would somehow take us to Theocracy or the Dark Ages because of these 50/50 major disagreements in American culture right now.

    nbc:
    So Joyeagle, any comments given the new evidence?

  230. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 8:31 pm #

    I’m with you on this. Well stated.

    nbc:
    Do I agree with you that women who have had abortion may be traumatized by the decision? Yes.

    Do I accept that some women may have been forced into abortions? Yes.

    Do I find this to be a sufficient reason to therefor outlaw abortion? Nope.

  231. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 8:31 pm #

    I saw Paul tonight on Kudlow. Leaning towards him still … based on economics and foreign policy … as well as being more 10th amendment and less “Domininism” in social issues. Yep. i’m pretty convinced that way.

    G:
    I agree with you there on both points – not liking neocon policy and that it is more reflective of “establishment” than Tea Party.

    So while I agree that the Establishment is clearly the home of the neo-cons… I have serious concerns of them succeeding in pushing the “Tea Party” aspects of their base that way too…

  232. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 8:45 pm #

    I concur. I truly enjoy and like you, Joyeagle. I am glad that you post here. I do think that you have a tendency to leap to supporting views or positions, simply because you “take on faith” what you’ve been told by those you consider part of your “tribe” and that you are guilty of doing enough to challenge or investigate assumptions when they simply conform to your own world-view pre-set biases or come from sources that you liken to the same.

    Hopefully, you will get better with time in realizing that interactions with others from outside your tribe can help break down the misconception “memes” that all of us can become susceptible to, when we allow ourselves to become too comfortable with only hearing the deceptively reinforcing voices of like-minded “group think”.

    Reality usually shows that even though we are a diverse body of people with diverse backgrounds, beliefs and interests; that the things we believe in and actually care about and want to see improved are more similar than we are led to believe.

    For that reason also, I find it very valuable and important that you continue to stick around and be a sincere and honest contributor. You and those like you help to break down and dispell similar false memes of over-generalization that the “other sides” can fall into as well.

    nbc: I cannot find fault with your beliefs but I would like to point out that this is ill supported by any evidence.

  233. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 8:46 pm #

    Yeh maybe. I know several people have a problem with believing God speaks to anyone today, but for most Christians, that is an orthodox basic understanding.
    I don’t have any problem with believing God led someone to run and they don’t win. Maybe it was just to bring them or their family through some growth, or somebody to meet them or a million other reasons. To suggest that God would only lead someone in a certain way for a certain outcome assumes that person has God pigeon-holed to their reasoning. I wouldn’t believe/serve a God that small. Just my take on it.

    Majority Will:
    Didn’t Cain and Bachmann both claim they were given Divine Instruction by the Creator of the Universe to run?

    Maybe the message was “run . . . .in the next Boston Marathon” and they just weren’t paying attention.

  234. avatar
    joyeagle January 4, 2012 at 8:48 pm #

    Thanks. Contrary to what it often seems … that is generally why I keep coming here.

    G:
    I concur.I truly enjoy and like you, Joyeagle.I am glad that you post here.I do think that you have a tendency to leap to supporting views or positions, simply because you “take on faith” what you’ve been told by those you consider part of your “tribe” and that you are guilty of doing enough to challenge or investigate assumptions when they simply conform to your own world-view pre-set biases or come from sources that you liken to the same.

    Hopefully, you will get better with time in realizing that interactions with others from outside your tribe can help break down the misconception “memes” that all of us can become susceptible to, when we allow ourselves to become too comfortable with only hearing the deceptively reinforcing voices of like-minded “group think”.

    Reality usually shows that even though we are a diverse body of people with diverse backgrounds, beliefs and interests; that the things we believe in and actually care about and want to see improved are more similar than we are led to believe.

    For that reason also, I find it very valuable and important that you continue to stick around and be a sincere and honest contributor.You and those like you help to break down and dispell similar false memes of over-generalization that the “other sides” can fall into as well.

  235. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 8:59 pm #

    That is just one of the key reasons I feel I no longer can turn to them for consideration as well. As I’ve repeatedly said, I’m not a Democrat.

    But I feel the GOP has gone so far away from anything I can support and more importantly is now pursuing a host of policy positions that I feel are a DIRECT THREAT to things I support or feel are necessary for the recovery, growth and future of our nation that I can’t in good conscience be part of voting GOP above the local level any more. I sadly feel that doing so only enables them to continue to go in a dangerous and unhealthy direction.

    I truly look forward to the day when a new alignment occurs to provide a sane second option for my vote. I think that whatever good there was in the GOP of the past can only come back to serve the body politic in new form….and quite likely in new name. I see the problems of shameless robber-barons and neo-cons instilling irrational fear and red meat into a susceptible base as not in anyone’s interests except the robber-barons and ultimately unsustainable in the long term. I see fracturing as inevitable, but as a good thing in the long term as well.

    I don’t think a healthy and sane party can re-emerge until it has first wrested control away from its cynical and well-moneyed machiavellian masters and then has the freedom to set a policy agenda on its own terms, without being beholden or brainwashed by the lies that the power structure sells to it to control and keep it subservient.

    nbc: That is enough a reason for me to not vote republican at this time. They cater to the rich and powerful and have no plan or interest in the middle class of our Nation.

  236. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 9:01 pm #

    I concur with this. I would only change the last sentence to say “why do we as a society not learn from these lessons of history…”

    Scientist: I have no problem with anyone who says “I would never have an abortion.I think they are morally wrong”That is their absolute right.It’s when they attempt to dictate to others that I have a problem.

    Laws against abortion are like laws against alcohol or drugs.Unenforcable and producing outcomes worse than what they attemptto stop.Ireland tried making abortions illegal.They tried prosecuting young women who went to England to getthem.It didn’t work.Abortion is now legal in Ireland.Why do you refuse to learn from other’s experience?

  237. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 9:03 pm #

    Good analogy & wise words.

    J. Potter: …not to mention our own experience. Roe v Wade is analogous to the repeal of prohibition.

    Many things in life are undesirable; few of them can be improved by pretending they don’t exist/will go away.

  238. avatar
    Majority Will January 4, 2012 at 9:08 pm #

    joyeagle:
    Yeh maybe.I know several people have a problem with believing God speaks to anyone today, but for most Christians, that is an orthodox basic understanding.
    I don’t have any problem with believing God led someone to run and they don’t win.Maybe it was just to bring them or their family through some growth, or somebody to meet them or a million other reasons.To suggest that God would only lead someone in a certain way for a certain outcome assumes that person has God pigeon-holed to their reasoning.I wouldn’t believe/serve a God that small.Just my take on it.

    Thanks for ruining the joke.

    Do you have a sense of humor or is unsolicited proselytizing just a LOT more natural?

    (That was a rhetorical question, Sheldon.)

  239. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 9:10 pm #

    Well, such lurid tales would raise red flags of critical skepticism, if it was me.

    With everything, might there be a few instances of such clearly aborrent and unacceptible behavior? YES. Can we all agree that such situations are clearly wrong – YES.

    But the root of the problem here is the FORCED AGAINST SOMEONE’S WILL.

    However, to believe that such things are simply widespread or common on its face is absolutely ludicrous and requires a huge amount of very susceptible gullibility to at some subconscious level, either wish or irrationally fear that such is true.

    Word to the wise when faced with second hand tales –

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

    Remember that maxim and remind yourself of it and you’ll go through life being less susceptible to manipulation by those with a clear agenda to dupe you by pushing your emotional buttons.

    joyeagle:
    No. That is not the kind of “forced” I was talking about in my context.I was talking about women being physically dragged into a clinic.Strapped down by doctors while screaming, “NO, No, NO … I don’t want to do it, I want my baby!”But being physically forced.My wife tells me that was at least half of their stories she talked to.

  240. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 9:43 pm #

    I was wondering how much Perry had left in his war chest. He really spent a lot in IA – which I think was the right thing to do. After all, if you are campaigning to win, then don’t be “tepid” in how you campaign (like Romney tends to do all too often), but give it 100% of your effort and commit, even if you fall down and can reasonably get back up and fight for another chance to make your case. I had assumed that he was now pretty much tapped out, but I’ve got no actual data to back that up one way or another.

    I’m sure his reverse decision to jump right back in today had to come from a practical calculation of having some sort of funding left and outside encouragement sufficient for him to suspect he can continue to receive financial backing from certain sources.

    He really was faced with a valid decision here – he came in fifth, but was able to sustain just above a 10% threshold (10.3%) and was able to get over 10,000 votes (12,604). In a first contest in a long race that is mostly delegate back-loaded this year and full of a lot of proportional allocation opportunities, there is a legitimate argument to say that it is worth continuing on… particularly when his true “early state” of strength was always SC and that is only a few weeks away. It is just close enough to argue sticking in and seeing it through, yet just far enough out to allow for a redoubled focus to get sufficient time to fundraise, organize and campaign and hope to make a case and create “momentum” in the interim.

    However, it was quite politically “unwise” for him to so publicly put forward the idea of him dropping out in his speech last night… It truly is another “oops” moment for him to overcome and makes it hard for even his supporters to still view him as “viable”. But hey, it is an unpredictable year. So while I severely doubt his chances, I won’t rule them out. SC is definitely is “last stand”. If he somehow pulls off doing well enough there to deserve merit, then he’s earned the right to be back in this race. If he comes in 5th again…he’s done.

    In terms of how he affects the rest of the dynamic – he’s hurting Newt & Santorum, as well as continuing to dilute and divide the “Conservative alternative” hopes…unless as you pointed out, he focuses the brunt of his attacks on Romney as well, in which he might be able to actually help the conservative cause by joining in a “piling on” to take Romney down…

    joyeagle:

    G, Thanks.Nice rundown. I can’t take credit for the weather suggestion … that was a Mike Huckabee prediction. Yeh, I was surprised after the Perry speech and trip home to Tx, that he would decide to press on.I agree with your assesment on that impact too. Although, it is possible with his remaining money (I’ve heard 2 million) he could disparage the front runner without garnering any support from his conservative rivals … but not likely.

  241. avatar
    Bob J January 4, 2012 at 9:43 pm #

    G hit the nail on the head in the above post.

    I am a devout agnostic. When asked what determines agnosticism, Thomas Huxley said:

    ” I confess myself to be utterly ignorant, of the things meta-physicians and theologians dogmatize, with the utmost confidence.”

    I am quoting, but it may be a word or two off. My mind Google ain’t perfect.

    I have no problem with any person’s faith.

    When someone says;” I prayed, and I know what I should do.”

    I am happy. I think that is great.

    When someone says; ” I prayed, and I know what you should do.”

    I am not so happy. No matter the subject. From sock color choice up to a true moral quandary.

    The leader of this country should lead Americans, not follow their personal deity.

  242. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

    I did mention that Santorum has an organization in place in both NH & Santorum, but I’m sure you heard it from the TV as well, as I was not more specific than that, as I haven’t had the chance yet to see how strong those organizations have grown. I didn’t realize that he’s achieved every NH county yet.

    In terms of the IA caucus being non-binding, yes, but the actual formulas of delegate allocation do have certain rules to them. Even in 2008, Paul who captured only 1 county and only got 9.93% of the vote still got 2 delegates out of the final IA calculus. Therefore, I suspect that all 3 of the top performers this year will each end up with a healthy apportionment of IA’s available delegates. Remember, Paul captured 17 counties this year – same as Romney. Perry actually got 2 and the other 63 went to Santorum. Therefore, it is even possible that a small number of the delegates get awarded to Perry and even Newt as well.

    There was originally supposed to be 41 delegates for IA, but there is still an open debate on how a penalty might be applied by the RNC to even them for moving up their contest to Jan 3rd. I’ve heard some differing numbers that the final IA total might be only 31 or 25 delegates…as the *possible* penalty isn’t a clear “slash in half” as sometimes is reported and could only affect a certain category of delegates.

    http://www.iowacaucus.biz/IA_Caucus_Howitworks.html

    Next, the Republican party will begin the process of selecting the 41 delegates that will represent the state of Iowa.
    Step 5 – After the caucuses in each county, a County Convention will be held to select the delegates for the District Convention, using the influence of the straw poll as a guide.
    Step 6 – After the County Convention, a District Convention will be held in which all of the counties in that political district will decide on just 3 delegates to represent each district. There are 6 districts in Iowa for a total of 18 delegates.
    Step 7 – The State of Iowa Republican Convention will decide upon a total of 23 more delegates, along with the 3 additional delegates per district, for a sum total of 41 delegates who will represent the candidates in the National Convention, at which the official Presidential Candidate for the Republican party will be decided.

    So yeah, we probably won’t see these totals get added to the run count until the end of the process, but they definitely will come into play.

    joyeagle:

    I can’t remember if I heard it from you or on TV, but I was surprised to find out that Santorum has organization in every county of New Hampshire already too.
    And, I do think there is still a chance that Paul has a better than expected showing in New Hampshire, being an open primary and everything. It was interesting news too, about his constituents staying late last night for the delegate vote … being the caucus itself was non-binding.

  243. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 11:08 pm #

    I understand your points. From a party perspective or Conservative Alternative perspective, they certainly are fair arguments. But I wouldn’t fault Bachmann for fairly giving it her all and committing to try to test her own fortunes in this race. Generally, people get into a serious race because they seriously feel they are the best candidate to win. She put a dedicated, sustained and serious effort into IA. It made sense for her to see that contest through. With her 6th place finish, the voters spoke and she simply lost the argument. Her speech was “weird” last night, but I’m glad that she made the right decision today and bowed out. For the profile she had and effort she dedicated to IA, there was no way to justify a 5% and really “last place” result. Her eggs really were all loaded into that IA basket.

    joyeagle:
    I like Bachmann. I wish she would have done the wiser thing, and dropped out and endorsed Santorum in the last couple of days. Her votes would have pushed him over the top, and she could have been the conservative “hero” and taken credit for his win.

    Yeah Palin’s endorsements would still hold a certain amount of weight amongst her fan base. Cain’s endorsement has a lesser value…but still a small amount. I would actually rate Jim DeMint’s endorsement as the biggest prize someone in the GOP Primary could win.

    There is a certain amount of “freshness” to an endorsement timeframe that go stale when one holds out to long. A “stale” endorsement seems like just following the pack and making an easy choice towards an already likely or inevitable outcome. Endorsements matter not just to the endorsee, but also for the possible “kingmaker” credit they can bring and have the potential to raise the profile of the endorser as well. The “kingmaker” value only comes into play when you have a substantial endorsement that comes across “bold” in its timing and seems like a visionary call by a leader and not a follower.

    Cain’s endorsement value continues to fade by the day. He missed a chance to make a bold mark on the IA election direction…especially early on, when his followers were still undecided of where to go to next. Even Palin’s endorsement value will become stale with time. The time for them to endorse is prior to SC and not after. At that point, they are not leading and just jumping on whatever existing bandwagon is already in play.

    In a similar vein, “establishment” endorsements for the “establishment” candidate really don’t carry much weight in the dynamic of this year’s election. They just come across as more blatant pressure from the “establishment” to “shove the establishment choice down the base’s throat”. Now, if a prominent establishment figure came out for anybody other than Romney…THAT might still make news, because it would be unexpected and signal a counter movement coalescing.

    joyeagle:
    I think if Santorum has any chance, he’ll need the endorsements of the Palins, Cains etc. Although I think any of those is highly unlikely.

    Thanks! I do my best to try to be as objective as I can in this. Feel free to challenge me if you feel I’ve losing objectivity or fairness, so I can keep myself on track. I also am trying to come at this situation not just from dispassionate objectivity, but also to view the situation and dynamics from 2 or more perspectives at a time – both from my own biases or preferences as well as trying to put myself in the shoes of the other perspectives in the race…or of their supporters and see it from their angle. I find the whole exercise to be a great and healthy challenge to not only get a fuller true and “honest” perspective of the whole race but also good mental exercise to keep myself balanced and more open to understanding the views of others.

    I was always strong in English and writing growing up. One of these days, I’ll get back to my passion for real writing and the novels and short stories I’ve been working on. But journalism – sadly a noble profession that I think barely exists or is respected anymore…so I don’t see a future in that.

    Actually, I’ve found that my writing skills have diminished significantly, as I feel that internet formats make it too easy for me to get lazy and fire off quick replies, without taking the time for proper review and correction. I too easily allow myself to make typos, grammatical errors and spelling errors. By acting out of stream of consciousness, I’ve developed a bad habit of using too many words to say what I mean, instead of taking a more measured approach and the time to be succinct. I’ve simply picked up a lot of bad writing habits that I really shouldn’t let myself form.

    joyeagle:

    I enjoy your intelligent and objective assesment of it all.
    Ever think of going into “the business” (journalism)?

  244. avatar
    G January 4, 2012 at 11:58 pm #

    Yes and no. I agree that the IA dynamic is going to differ in other states.

    It certainly is not expected to be replicated in NH.

    However, I expect a fairly different but even stronger Conservative dynamic to be in play in SC.

    Since this the GOP Primary, all states will have a certain factor of different flavors of the “Coservative” dynamic vs. “Establishment” dynamic vs. “Libertarian” dynamic in their mix that play out. I agree that each will have its own unique angles and strengths or weaknesses on how those can play out.

    However, I would posit that on a whole, more of the GOP base (especially in all the interior areas of the country) are going to be openly receptive to putting up a large percentage of support for a Conservative candidate and less enamoured or “beholded” to an East Coast money and DC/beltway “establishment” control structure…

    So I feel that a number of states, the margin of support for such a “Conservative” alternative could even be higher than 53%! Even from Ron Paul’s perspective, there are a number of states where his base and potential are much stronger than IA offers him…and certain states that will be harder for him to break through.

    Remember, for as “Conservative” as IA GOP voters are viewed, they also get used to a lot of Establishment candidates and messages, simply by being the first contest and having nearly all campaigns spend some time there early on.

    As the calendar moves forward, particularly to where there are more than one state contest in play, the candidates still in contention will have to make choices of where they can both afford the time and money to directly compete and make personal appearances. This too can play a significant factor in a still unsettled race and greatly impact the percentage of voters who are open to an alternative that is willing to spend the time and attention in their state.

    So, I think both non-establishment factions in play here have a lot of potential to still shape this race. The Conservative Alternative is the most likely and biggest factor in play. But even the Ron Paul factor should suprise and be more significant in the long run than many people realize.

    Case in point. Ron Paul was only a very minor factor in 2008, right?

    So I bet you’d be surprised to realize just how much support he got in certain states, even back then, particularly in Caucus situations, of which there are a number still to come in this year’s calendar. In 2008, Ron Paul did much better in caucus states (12.3% of the vote) than in primary states (5.6%).

    Ron Paul’s best 2008 caucus performances were in the following states:

    Montana 24.5%
    Washington 21.6%
    North Dakota 21.3%
    Maine 18.4%
    Alaska 17.3%
    Minnesota 15.7%
    Nevada 13.7%
    Kansas 11.2%
    Iowa 9.93%

    So, if he can go from 9.93% in Iowa in 2008 to 21.4% in 2012…imagine what he might be able to do this year in some of those states where he had really significant support even back then! Remember, Paul’s operation has been steadily growing in ALL these states since 2008. His operations never left those places and his national organizational structure, which has translated to his campaign structure is very actively running in a vast number of states already. Especially when you get past the early states, Paul actually has quite an edge and lead on Romney in the number of places he’s already got a viable campaign organization already underway…

    Did you know that even in 2008, Ron Paul came in 2nd place in all the following GOP Primary elections:

    Nevada, Montana, Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, Nebraska, Oregon, Idaho, South Dakota, New Mexico, Northern Mariana Islands

    Here’s the list of one’s in which he got a 3rd place finish:

    North Dakota, Utah, Alaska, Maine, Kansas, Washington, Virginia, Wisconsin, Vermont, Rhode Island, Ohio, Texas, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, North Carolina, Washington DC, Puerto Rico

    So yeah, every time I do the research and analysis to look at this race and compare past history of the race and any of the repeat candidates, I’m shocked by how much the data continues to tell me 2 key trends:

    1. Romney is not a “given”, despite the media narrative. Outside of a few key “favored” states (NH, MA, CT, VT, MI, AZ, NV, UT), the data keeps showing the “red flags” of a ceiling that rarely, if ever can get above low 20’s for support and a “lead” that goes instead to whatever “alternative” had the “bubble” over Romney. This tends to tell me that the majority of states are really craving an alternative and many of them are clearly open to a “Conservative Alternative”

    2. The Ron Paul factor will likely loom large over this election and be a long lasting impact on its dynamic. It has the greatest potential to repeatedly sink back to being “overlooked” and intentionally “discounted”, without any such “shunning” able to stop it or keep it from popping back up with a number of strong showings and surprises.

    There are certainly a number of states at play this year in which Ron Paul has a very credible shot at winning them, regardless…and underestimating his strengths there probably just helps his chances. Heck, he was in serious contention in IA for the 2012 prize… Now look at those stats from 2008 again: IA was way down on the list of performance for Ron Paul in 2008…

    joyeagle:
    I agree with your assessment, and hope that we conservatives do coalesce sooner than later.However, as I am sure you would agree, I don’t think the 53% conservative vs establishment holds up everywhere outside IA.

  245. avatar
    G January 5, 2012 at 12:18 am #

    It sure does!

    Tell me, what is untrue or inaccurate about that portrayal?

    That is, in fact the reality. I agree with that assessment wholeheartedly

    Obama’s statement in no way is denouncing or denigrating these people.

    If anything, he is arguing for a sympathic understanding of why they are upset and what they have at their disposal, that is familiar to them, in order to express their discontent.

    It is a bold, honest and compassionate portrayal of the dynamic. To take offense and see it as a slight is to entirely miss what he is saying.

    More importantly, for those who’ve allowed themselves to to fall prey to these very same dynamics in leaping to an immediate defensive posture and coming away as if it was a negative…the tragic irony is just sadly more apparent in such a reaction.

    Here was a statement intended to make others understand and be more open and compassionate to the angry sets that feel left behind and persecuted.

    And yet, that very angry set reacts poorly, and lashes out at the open hand by biting back, like a rabid dog, and utterly missing the opportunity and point altogether….just sad and tragic.

    joyeagle:

    I think his quote in context speaks for itself:

    “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
    And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

  246. avatar
    G January 5, 2012 at 12:23 am #

    Completely spot on!!! Kudos for summarizing the heart of the matter so aptly!

    Daniel: Agreed. There is an apparent need for some people to hyper-demonize things they disagree with.

    They don’t like Abortion, so they invent thousands of kidnappings and assaults. They don’t like Muslims, so they invent broad conspiracies of Muslim takovers with Sharia law. They don’t like Witches, so they invent Satanic Ritual abuse, they don’t like Democrats, so they invent organized liberal treason. They don’t like a black man in the Whitehouse, so they invent the birther conspiracy. They don’t like Jews, so they invent Zionist Illuminati…. oh, sorry, that was last generation. This generation is all chummy with Isreal now.

    Of course the problem with over demonizing someone you don’t agree with, is that it says more about you than it does about the people you choose to hate. It’s also counter-productive.

    The only people who will believe such outlandish stories , like thousands of kidnappings for forced abortions, are people already in the choir. Reasonable people who may not have quite made up their minds about the subject are more apt to look at the hyper-demonization and conclude, reasonably so, that the people doing it are exaggerating because they have a lack of substance. Given that they are more likely to choose the other side.

    The anti-abortion side would likely have a lot more support, if they would knock off the made-up horror stories and just stick to the facts, and the opinions.

  247. avatar
    G January 5, 2012 at 12:31 am #

    A single dimensional line of right-left is insufficient to classify Libertarianism with Liberal & Conservative.

    The models that are more accurate and make sense appropriately add an additional dimension to the political perspective, so you have 4 Quandrants, separated by two lines – the left (liberal) – right (conservative) continuum and an up (anarchist) – down (authoritarian) continuum. The traditional Libertarian position is fairly high on the “up” portion of the continuum.

    nbc: Libertarian in US parlance. After all, liberal is often incorrectly used to describe people who see the government as playing an important role. In the real world, yes, he is more of a liberal but at the extreme side of the spectrum. These terms have been use too loosely. That’s like calling Obama a Marxist

  248. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 5, 2012 at 1:12 am #

    Well if it’s off topic, don’t post it on an article where it doesn’t belong. Just saying “this is off topic” is not a magic formula that grants a license to post anything anywhere. Put off topic stuff here in the Open Thread where I moved it.

    gorefan: This is off topic but

  249. avatar
    G January 5, 2012 at 1:43 am #

    Wow! That was AWESOME analysis! I really think you made a lot of excellent points that I’ll work to take into account into my own analysis going forward.

    Just a few areas of specific commentary to add:

    1. Re: Newt Gingrich – I see your view and I think that is a fair argument to make contrary to how I aligned him with the “Conservative” vote. The reason I placed Newt as I did is he is a “Not Romney” Alternative. Newt really is his own unique case and has a blend of different “appeals” from different segments of the right -both in certain “establishment” circles and in certain “Deep Red” circles. Maybe the best way to simplify him in such an equation would be to split his vote total and allocate half to each side…

    2. Excellent points about some of the large, urban states. However, I think here too there is a “regional” factor at play. While I think NY, NJ and DC are more likely to want to settle on Romney, that is not true everywhere.

    If you study the state polling in places such as FL and CA, you will see an unstable show of strength for Romney – he’ll actually get some of his higher than average numbers when there is no other candidate surging. However, his numbers seem to deflate their more quickly and transfer to whomever is surging as the “alternative” as well. So I think places like that represent a whole dynamic of their own – they will flock to whoever has the “momentum” at the time…there just doesn’t seem to be any solid loyalty at all. Romney seems to have *both* a higher potential ceiling there as well as a much lower floor… IL I just can’t assess yet, as there has been surprisingly little state polling data specific to the GOP race for this cycle.

    TX and GA follow the true-southern state pattern of being “Deep Red” prizes, if they can seize the opportunity. My own OH seemed to be a “Cain” stronghold…so I suspect it will favor a Deep Red over Establishment.

    3. Unlike previous cycles (particularly 2008), this year is *very* back-loaded on big winner-take-all states. Therefore, the calendar leaves a lot of breathing room for a “Conservative Alternative” to emerge that the Deep Reds consolidate around, with several “dead zone” break periods in Feb, Mar, and April for the “Conservative Alternative” to really build a competitive financing and organizational structure and seriously compete.

    4. SC is the next “true test” for the “Conservative” factions…but it is looking to still be a competition between those players for dominance. FL is more of a mixed dynamic, open to all factions, but the survivors out of SC will definitely have to compete here. Then come 4 delegate-allocating caucuses at the beginning of Feb: NV, ME, CO, MN. Of those, only NV looks strong for Romney and all of them have strong Paul structures in place and could be a real windfall for Paul at that stage of the game. (Note: Paul even has a surprisingly competive organization in place in SC and FL…even though those aren’t viewed as “strongholds” for him). Romney also seems to have a not strong, but still solid support base in CO. I have very little data on MN. Also, the SW states seem fully open to a Deep Red candidate doing well there too.

    5. After early Feb, there is a long break until AZ & MI at the end of the month. Romney is expected to do well in both places, but there is a lot of opportunity and receptiveness for the other candidates here as well…so they really could move to being in play for almost anyone. Ron Paul’s organization is pretty strong and active in both those states. Rick Santorum’s manufacturing message can be a strong sell in MI…and Romney’s statements to let Detroit fail can really be used to hurt him there. Both have some significant Deep Red strongholds too.

    6. Then there is the Newt factor. Even if you take out his “surge” numbers, he was showing better than average approvals in a number of these areas: SC, FL, NV, AZ and MI. So, if he’s still in play during those states…he’s got a sufficient “fan base” outside of his “bubble support”.

    7. The last thing before “Super Tuesday” on Mar 6th is the WA caucus on Mar 3. Expect Paul to do really well there too. So the early calendar leading up to Super Tuesday has a lot of areas that are truly open and able to be won by someone other than Romney…and not just that…but from a faction other than “Establishment”. There is definitely a serious chance that this race could truly remain twisting, turning and “wide-open” coming into Super Tuesday. The open question is whether a solid “Conservative Alternative” winner emerges before then and coalesces their support. I think SC and FL are the 2 best chances to play out…and if we go into Super Tuesday with Romney, Paul and a Conservative Champion”…those dynamics and the Super Tuesday dynamics could easily lead to that having a mixed bunch of different wins too!

    8. So yes, in terms of racking up delegate counts, I’m in agreement with you that there is a high liklihood of the other factions putting a lot of points on the scoreboard before this thing in settled.

    9. Obviously, Romney will be putting up points all along the way too. I don’t mean to ignore or understate this. Sometimes, because I view him as such a “defacto” front-runner, it is only left unsaid, because I consider it such a “given”. But let’s be clear – Romeny will put points on the board, even in any states he loses.

    10. I believe the current “magic number” for delegates is 1143. I doubt Romney or anyone can reach that until at least late April…and more likely late May.

    11. Both Romeny AND Paul already have the ability to go the distance and fight it out until the end. Any other true alternative to emerge will have a challenge to get the money, support and organization in place – true. However, this year’s calendar really provides several opportunities and break periods, in which the right person could definitely make that happen.

    12. I think once the Deep Reds are down to a surviving candidate in their “contest within a contest”, they will simply settle and double down on that candidate. In many ways, it is not that different an argument that the establishment is using with Romney – barely anyone is excited or even enthused by him at all – they simply are resigned to “settle” for him…

    J. Potter: G, First, thanks, happy you were able to find it amidst the eruption of concern here! This Open Thread could be called the Hot and Heavy edition

    Thanks also for the additional insight, we do have different reads on the chances of a far right candidate winning out!

    No need to go over the conservative rural v progressive urban split, not much new there, and I have lived it everyday, firsthand, intensely, since high school. My main point was how clear the trend, which has been so notable between the 2 parties, was inside of a single party’s results. And how it may continue to play out.

    In Iowa, a rural state, the two sides balanced. Even lumping the 6 main candidates together amongst the extremes, they balance. I don’t agree that Gingrich’s supporters will go to the Deep Reds. To me, I believe Romney-Gingrich-Huntsman supporters would align against Santorum-Perry-Bachman supporters, giving a vote total in Iowa of 48,700 Deep Red v. 47,000 Red. The pattern may well continue in other rural states. In sparsely populated states, I think Paul will do well, may even win a few over the Deep Red favorite.

    However, the delegate gold mines are the populous states, which have more and larger urban areas. In these states, as in the 2008 general, the conservatives will win the countryside, perhaps 90% of the geography, but lose the state, as all the “good parts” favor the more moderate candidate.

    Worse, the Deep Red sentiment has been fickle. Perhaps they have finally found their champion. If not, and their preference varies from state to state, Romney and Paul, with their organizational and fiscal advantages, will continue to pick up a steady number of delegates in contest after contest, with others picking up some here, some there. Old reliable will win this race….10 delegates from every state beats 20 from 20 states. If Santorum has indeed grasped the Deep Red standard, we may have a horse race here. For awhile, in the rural states anyway.

    Finally, as previously expected/explained in my Red anti-Paul conspiracy theory, at-large delegates are going to drift to Romney. So far that’s holding true. Romney has supposedly pocketed, overall, 18 delegates vs 8 for Santorum and 7 for Paul.

    Age and Money are (in more ways than one!) on Romney’s side. When Santorum says elections are no longer about money, he’s dreaming.

    PS–to steal a wit from Borowitz, last night’s results set a new record for fewest people deciding a US election, 8 people. That’s one less since the previous record, set in 2000, of 9.

  250. avatar
    G January 5, 2012 at 1:54 am #

    So in other words, Dean Haskins “Big Surprise Angle” is exactly the slimy path of faulty reasoning and EPIC FAIL direction we assumed he was taking all along…

    gorefan:
    This is off topic but our old friend Dean Haskins has been promising a big lawsuit in Hawaii.Well, he appears to be keeping his word.Filed on January 3rd, 2012 comes the case of …drum roll please

    Duncan Sunahra v. Dept. of Health SOH et al.Case #:1CC12-1-000006

    To recap:

    Orly said in her New Hampshire filings that Virginia Sunahara’s BC number is out-o- line for someone born the same day as President Obama. This was based on the COLB obtained by the Sunahara family.

    She recently added Virginia Sunahara’s original BC on her list of things she wants Hawaii DOH to allow her to inspect.She reported that made Dean Haskins mad.

    And now apparently, Virginia’s brother has sued to get a LFBC.LOL, that idiot Haskins has not been following the revelations of BC cert numbers from August, 1961.

    What we know to date:

    Ah’Nee – 09945 – August 23rd
    Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – August 5th
    Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638 – August 5th
    Obama, Barack – 10641 – August 4th
    Sunahara, Virginia– 10xxx – August 4th
    Waidelich, Stig – 10920 – August 5th

    I betting 10840 for Virginia.

    Disclaimer: unfortunately young Virginia passed away only one day after her birth, how this might affect the numbering of her birth certificate is unknown.My assumption is that it would not affect it.But we will just have to wait and see.

  251. avatar
    G January 5, 2012 at 2:26 am #

    Good read & additional analysis!

    Obviously, I agree with Matt Welch in his story.

    On to the other important point you brought up – I think such splits will happen to. I think they are in some ways, both inevitable AND a good thing. These cracks are real and have been bubbling under the surface for some time. The Establishment is no longer “Reaganesque” in bringing them together in a “Big Tent” philosophy.

    Today’s GOP establishment is really a bunch of cynical and greedy Robber Barons that just use the various coalitions within the base to further their own power. There are too many stories of “establishment” types having nothing but utter contempt for much of their own base and admitting such in conversations behind closed doors.

    Really, the best thing for these various factions, whether “Deep Red” or “Tea Party” or “Libertarian” or however they identify would be to either break away or grab the reigns of power away from the Establishment. At least then, we’d have candidates from them with real conviction and true democracy could take place by having a clear choice and knowing the stakes of where people really stand on issues. I definitely think both the Libertarian and Deep Red factions would be bases of power all unto themselves.

    But remember, realignments, which are bound to happen over time in society anyways, do not happen in a vaccum.

    If the current GOP split and the Libertarian wing left…well, they’ve got an existing Libertarian party to merge with…as well as draw some support for other people registered as Independent or with other existing lesser parties that might now realign with a new, powerful “Libertarian” movement.

    Same with the Deep Reds. One of the largest 3rd parties out there is called the “Constitution Party”. Although some might go with the Libertarians, most of their values seem truly rooted in Deep Red territory.

    The current Democratic Party would face change in the event of any splitting or realignment of the GOP as well. In a dual-party dynamic, a certain amount of people are in one coalition, simply because they see an overall stronger connection than the other alternative…but have a mixture of views that could align differently under a different dynamic…so changing the dynamic of one party will always likely shift some of those previously aligned with the other.

    It sort of works like collision theory between two large bodies in space. After the dust settles, even if one body splinters…gravity will eventually coalesce and you can still end up with two new, yet different large bodies as a result.

    There would be some democrats that would leave and go to a new Libertarian coalition. LIkewise, there might be certain “conservadems” that would leave and go to a new “Conservative” Deep Red party alignment.

    If other factions split, the voiceless and powerless “moderate Republicans” out there will likely finally see an opportunity of their own to coalesce and form a base of power. Some of them have drifted off and now vote with the Dems. Some just loyally cast their vote for a GOP that no longer wants anything but their vote. Some may have stopped voting altogether. They would finally have an opportunity in a splintered dynamic to reforge a Party that serves their interests. And if that happened, that truly would cause a major shift and realignment…as a moderate party or even a true “center right” party could pull quite a bit of appeal and membership into its coalition from various people that are currently registred Democrats…not to mention the segment of moderate Independents out there.

    For awhile, there could be more than 2 legitimate parties fighting for power and holding seats in congress. At some point, the US model will likely coalesce back to 2 primary “big tent” factions…but with new dynamics driving them.

    Personally, I think something to these effects will happen eventually… and more importantly, I would consider that a return to democracy playing out as it should.

    J. Potter:
    A few more PS’s (haha)

    G isn’t the only Romney doubter … here’s a fun one.

    I know it’s a dull result, but it may bring my fantasy of a party splintering to pass. Everything about our competitive, winner-take-all political system favors a duality, but I’d love to see two things finally happen: a libertarian party emerge, and the Red’s 30-yr old “deal with the devil” come undone. For the former … maybe Ron Paul’s organization can merge with the existing Libertarian party, but I doubt it. It’s a personality cult to an extent, and will go when Paul does. For the latter, I’d like to see the Deep Reds follow their convictions and abandon the Reds, like a parasite that has outgrown its host. The 2 extremes of the GOP aren’t helping each other—or the rest of us!—while joined at the hip. If this happens, the new Deep Red party would probably fail, as the money would stay with the mother party. At least the separate entities would be able to pursue their interests with somewhat reduced infighting.

    (my use of “devil”, “personality cult”, and “parasite … host” are illustrative, not intended as insults)

  252. avatar
    G January 5, 2012 at 2:34 am #

    Thanks for your post Bob J! You brought quite an interesting perspective to add to the conversation, and in a good humored way! A POV conveyed in a simple to understand way, definitely worthy of causing all of us to further reflect, regardless of where our own belief structures lay… Kudos!

    Bob J:
    G hit the nail on the head in the above post.

    I am a devout agnostic. When asked what determines agnosticism, Thomas Huxley said:

    ” I confess myself to be utterly ignorant, of the things meta-physicians and theologians dogmatize, with the utmost confidence.”

    I am quoting, but it may be a word or two off. My mind Google ain’t perfect.

    I have no problem with any person’s faith.

    When someone says;” I prayed, and I know what I should do.”

    I am happy. I think that is great.

    When someone says;” I prayed, and I know what you should do.”

    I am not so happy. No matter the subject. From sock color choice up to a true moral quandary.

    The leader of this country should lead Americans, not follow their personal deity.

  253. avatar
    Lupin January 5, 2012 at 3:48 am #

    I certainly respect people’s rights to believe that abortion is murder but they should know that this was not a universally held views for a long time amongst the fathers if the Church.

    St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, by returning to the Aristotelian Pagan concept of “delayed ensoulment.” He wrote in “On Exodus”, (21, 80) that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated). He wrote extensively on sexual matters, teaching that the original sin of Adam and Eve are passed to each successive generation through the pleasure generated during sexual intercourse. This passed into the church’s canon law. Only abortion of a more fully developed “fetus animatus” (animated fetus) was punished as murder.

    St. Jerome (circa 340 – 420) wrote in a letter to Aglasia: “The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs” “Epistle” (121, 4)

    My personal favorite: Starting in the 7th century CE, a series of penitentials were written in the West. These listed an array of sins, with the penance that a person must observe as punishment for the sin. Certain “sins” which prevented conception had particularly heavy penalties. These included: practicing a particularly ineffective form of birth control, coitus interruptus; engaging in oral sex or anal sex; becoming sterile by artificial means, such as by consuming sterilizing poisons. Abortion, on the other hand, required a less serious penance. Theodore, who organized the English church, assembled a penitential about 700 CE. Oral intercourse required from 7 years to a lifetime of penance; an abortion required only 120 days.

    Need I go on?

    I find it amusing that Joyeagle thinks (s)he knows better than St. Augustine, St. Jerome and the man who basically wrote the tenets of the CoE.

    A bit more humility might be appropriate, joyeagle.

  254. avatar
    Northland10 January 5, 2012 at 7:13 am #

    Klaus Stemplemeyerson: Craig v. U.S., 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, 2009

    Even liberally construed, Mr. Craig’s claim is not grounded in a constitutional or federal question: there is no such “right” (a) to have courts adopt his proffered legal definition, (b) to be classified as a citizen pursuant to that definition, or (c) to obtain certification of the status he attempts to define.

    You are arguing around the point but missing what is being said. There is no privilege or right in the constitution or the laws of the United States to be declared a Natural Born Citizen. Therefore, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, there is no case or controversy and therefore, it is not under the jurisdiction of the US Courts. They do not provide advisory opinions.

    In the case of WKA, he was denied a right of a citizen to re-enter the country and travel freely. The reason given by the government was that he was not a citizen. So, to determine if he was denied a right, the court decided they had to determine if, indeed, he was a citizen who had rights that were abridged. WKA had a case under the Constitution, so the court could take it and make a decision.

    Now, if Georgia chose to remove the President from the ballot, he would then have a controversy which could, and would be taken to the courts. In reality, he may actually have at least 2:

    1. MAY a state withhold a name from the ballot due to their definition of eligibility (does the Constitution state, must be NBC to run for President, at the primary level or does it mean must be NBC to be President). SCOTUS already chose not to hear a case on MUST a state determine eligibility (the latest Kreep case).

    2. Is President Obama a Natural Born Citizen and therefore, being denied a right to be on the ballot in Georgia.

  255. avatar
    Sean January 5, 2012 at 7:33 am #

    I’ve spoken online with some Ron Paul supporters and when pressed on the newsletter issue some concede he is a racist, but that there’s nothing wrong with being a racist.

  256. avatar
    Majority Will January 5, 2012 at 8:07 am #

    Rick Santorum actually blames the Blah people.

    Iowa runner-up Rick Santorum said Thursday that he would be “a much bigger player” than expected in the New Hampshire primary and denied saying that he wanted “to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money” in an interview Wednesday night with Fox News.

    Santorum made the controversial comments when discussing welfare, but maintained that people misheard the word “black” when he stumbled on a word.

    “I looked at that, and I didn’t say that. If you look at it, what I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and it sort of — blah — came out. And people said I said black.’ I didn’t,” Santorum said.

    (source: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/202471-santorum-denies-racially-charged-statement-)

    Thanks for clarifying, Rick. I’ve always had my suspicions about those Blah people.

  257. avatar
    joyeagle January 5, 2012 at 9:44 am #

    Thanks for the review of Paul’s showing in 2008. I voted in MT that time around, and I knew he had strong support there, couldn’t remember how well he fared though. They held a caucus and primary last time around. They were concerned about their voice not being heard due to late primary, and opted for a non-binding caucus earlier. I went, but was not able to vote–only “elected” republicans could vote in the caucus. The strong Ron Paul supporters I knew well were in the Constitution Party, so weren’t even voting in the caucus/primary. Now that my Cain bumper stickers are off the cars and in the garage Freezer, I’ll have to go get some Paul Revolution stickers to do my part in Florida.

    In terms of Gingrich’s voting block source, I think you are right in that he gets half establishment and half red meat. My 4 siblings and father all moved his direction with the big swell. His ability to Loudly and unapologetically promote Deep Red’s heartfelt issues wins him over … until they start reviewing his record. And I think his willingness to be more bold also wins overs some of the establishment. But his ability to Loudly misspeak (or speak without thinking or whatever it is) eventually turns both groups off just as well.

    G:
    Yes and no.I agree that the IA dynamic is going to differ in other states.

    It certainly is not expected to be replicated in NH.

    There are certainly a number of states at play this year in which Ron Paul has a very credible shot at winning them, regardless…and underestimating his strengths there probably just helps his chances.Heck, he was in serious contention in IA for the 2012 prize… Now look at those stats from 2008 again:IA was way down on the list of performance for Ron Paul in 2008…

  258. avatar
    Scientist January 5, 2012 at 9:49 am #

    Dear Birthers: I have listened to you for years now complaining about how President Obama is hiding something, despite his releasing his birth certificate, not once but twice. Therefore, I look forward to your outrage regarding Mitt Romney’s refusal to release his tax returns. This is something that every major candidate in the last 40 years has done. President Obama released his going back to 2000 when he ran for the presidency and has released them every year since he has been in office.

    We are not talking about some records from childhood or college, but documents that pertain to Mr Romney’s recent business dealings and whether he pays his fair share. Surely, you will agree this is information voters should have. I eagerly await the birthers’ righteous anger over Mitt’s squirrely behavior.

  259. avatar
    J. Potter January 5, 2012 at 10:27 am #

    Majority Will: Rick Santorum actually blames the Blah people.

    Thanks for that one, MW! Some world class smarmy there ….

  260. avatar
    J. Potter January 5, 2012 at 10:34 am #

    Scientist: Dear Birthers: … I look forward to your outrage regarding Mitt Romney’s refusal to release his tax returns

    I second that motion, Scientist! Doing so wouldn’t help his manufactured “Everyman” image …. but not doing so has (in my mind) the same effect. Other than levels and sources of income and tax rates paid, what loyalties might they reveal? How about use of loopholes, shelters, offshore activity? Does he think being “part of the problem” runs counter to his desired image? Gee willikers, Mr. Romney!

  261. avatar
    nbc January 5, 2012 at 12:25 pm #

    Hi Joyeagle, may I invite you to comment on my findings that the ‘affidavits’ of these thousands of women who had undergone an abortion was not exactly what you appear they were?

    You wrote

    Remember Roe v Wade, the lady who fought for her “abortion rights” in that was Norma McCorvey. She leads a group opposing it. She has thousands upon thousands of affidavits from women who have had abortions that have been traumatized by it and oppose it now. A large number of them were forced into it. It is not about women’s rights or contraception.

    Just curious as to what you think in light of these new facts.

  262. avatar
    joyeagle January 5, 2012 at 12:38 pm #

    Sure. I appreciate all the current info you found on them. Very helpful. I was going off of what I remember my wife talking about after her meeting with them 9 years ago.
    I don’t see any disparity between what I remember and what you found. Thousands of women who were traumatized. Many within them were physically forced.
    Anyway, that was a long tangent from suggesting Santorum’s stand with nearly 50% of the country on this issue is not the same as driving the country into Theocracy or the Dark Ages. I’m not even necessarily supporting him or his stand on this. Just pointing out the fear-based hyperbole that we see on both sides.
    Like the President’s recent decision to make an appointment without the advisement of the Senate who is technically not recessed … you know, leading down the road of a communist dictatorship. That is an easy emotional, fear-based leap from his action to that feeling/response from someone of my ilk, similar to your response to Santorum taking us to the dark ages and a theocracy because he supports an amendment outlawing abortion.
    That is all.
    I don’t mean to or expect to convince anyone about their stand or feelings concerning abortion itself.

    nbc:
    Hi Joyeagle, may I invite you to comment on my findings that the affidavits’ of these thousands of women who had undergone an abortion was not exactly what you appear they were?

    You wrote

    Just curious as to what you think in light of these new facts.

  263. avatar
    Scientist January 5, 2012 at 12:48 pm #

    joyeagle: Like the President’s recent decision to make an appointment without the advisement of the Senate who is technically not recessed … you know, leading down the road of a communist dictatorship.

    I know you are being facetious, but I want to set the record straight. First, Obama has made fewer recess appointments than any recent President. Second, the Republicans swore to block, not just this particular person, but ANYONE Obama would appoint to that office. An office whose job it is to actually look out for consumers as opposed to banks.

  264. avatar
    bovril January 5, 2012 at 12:50 pm #

    I feel a bad case of Hailku coming on…… 😎

    ——————————–

    Seven dwarves a running

    Now down to three less crazy

    No anal leakage

    ———————————

    The field closes

    But look Palin wants to play

    R’s take Viagra

    ——————————

    Right Wing Nut Jobs cry

    Crazy eyes not so hot now

    Still hate the Mittens

    ——————————-

    R’s cry bitter tears

    The one they hate is ahead

    So sad they will lose

    ——————————–

    R’s draw their weapons

    The circular firing squad

    Better die than Mitt

  265. avatar
    nbc January 5, 2012 at 12:58 pm #

    Like the President’s recent decision to make an appointment without the advisement of the Senate who is technically not recessed … you know, leading down the road of a communist dictatorship.

    That is fascinating, Bush leads us in an unnecessary war based on lies and we hear nothing but Obama forces the Senate to do its job and it is suddenly communist dictatorship.

    As to the ‘technically not recessed’, you do realize that this is a gimmick where the Senate is in session and out within a minute… The Republicans in the Senate has effectively been obstructing the appointment of the head of an agency. Now that is true dictatorship in my dictionary. President Obama is forcing the ‘do nothing Congress’ to take action and if they don’t he will. If the Senate had a better candidate for the position in mind, then fine but they blocked any vote on the topic because they do not like the agency.

    The agence provides much needed protection for consumers and the Republicans, who do not care about the middle class, whine at the though that companies will be regulated in order to avoid the disaster of the previous Republican deregulation of financial institutions.

    You may very well familiarize yourself with what the President and others before him did before making such foolish comments.

    As to your response to my findings on the Abortion affidavits, I see that nothing will sway you from you preconceived ideas, not even new data which shows how meaningless these affidavits really are and data which show that there is NO scientific evidence that there is a significant psychological cost to abortions. You, somewhat mindlessly, allow yourself to be guided by your preconceived ideas, that is too bad.

    I can understand your beliefs and convictions on abortion but your reliance on these affidavits is ill conceived…

    Would you be interested in finding the truth?

  266. avatar
    nbc January 5, 2012 at 1:01 pm #

    You are totally misrepresenting my position here. Have you no shame…

    joyeagle: That is an easy emotional, fear-based leap from his action to that feeling/response from someone of my ilk, similar to your response to Santorum taking us to the dark ages and a theocracy because he supports an amendment outlawing abortion.

  267. avatar
    nbc January 5, 2012 at 2:05 pm #

    McCorvey has been making the argument that abortion actually hurts women, not just some women but actually that it causes physiological and psychological issues.

    While there is indeed data to support that some people may be forced and that some people may die or have complications or that some people may suffer from some real traumatic experiences, the scientific evidence does NOT support a relationship between abortion and such. McCorvey’s affidavits present a misleading picture by making unfounded assertions, not based on personal experience but based on the misleading information placed out there by anti-choice people.

    That I find extremely objectionable as now they are using these women to further something for which there is just no evidence.

    There are many methodological problems with the affidavits, the most obvious one is the self reporting nature based on questionnaires at anti-choice websites. The second problem is the lack of scientific rigor.

    From the paper which exposes some of these flaws:

    Another key argument in support of McCorvey’s motion was that abortion actually hurts women. The McCorvey briefs were supported by affidavits from women responding to four standardized questions: 1) “[W]hen and where [did] your abortion occur[… ?];” 2) “[H]ow has your abortion affected you?;” 3) “[W]hat would you tell a woman considering an abortion?;” 4) “[W]hat would you tell a court that believes abortion should be legal?,,65 The women were reached through forms on anti-choice websites, including the website for the Elliot Institute, an organization founded by the leading proponent of the faux science “post-abortion syndrome. ”

    There is indeed no scientific evidence for the post-abortion syndrome which means that these people are not only involved in taking away the rights of others, but also using false science (something quite common among the poorly informed crowd that so often makes up the evangelical extremist movements, whether it is ozone, global warming, evolution, the emergence of faux-science has caused much damage to our Nation’s understanding of the facts).

    But it gets worse

    The affiants also made claims about the physiological harms of abortion. However, instead of simply describing personal experience, they offered a steady stream of unsubstantiated and unqualified medical opinions about a wide range of physical harm purportedly caused by the abortion procedure.

    As I explained there is NO scientific evidence for most of these claims.

    I find that highly objectionable… But I guess others may see it as just the end justifying the means?…
    As a Christian, I object to people who use false data to make their arguments as it hurts our credibility and is just so un-Christian.

  268. avatar
    James M January 5, 2012 at 2:08 pm #

    joyeagle: You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them.

    It occurs to me that the people in those small towns have generally been living indoors, drinking running water, crapping in flush toilets, eating safe food, in the last 25 years. So there’s more going on that is represented by this quote.

  269. avatar
    James M January 5, 2012 at 2:17 pm #

    Majority Will:

    Santorum made the controversial comments when discussing welfare, but maintained that people misheard the word “black” when he stumbled on a word.

    Play that sound clip *with* the video for *anyone* who speaks English. Ask them what they heard.

    Compare it to the number of people who hear “‘scuse me while I kiss this guy”, or “wrapped up like a douche”. I think you’ll get more positive hits on “black”. There is probably an anchoring heuristic at work here because the context is quite strong (we tend to anchor “black” with “welfare” whether we are motivated by our own racist value assumption or not).

    Even trying to be fair, I’m sorry, my bet is on “Black.” And maybe there _is_ a bathroom on the right, and certainly there’s a wino down the road,

  270. avatar
    G January 5, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

    Hi Joyeagle!

    I want to give you the “NAILED IT” award for the day!!! You’re analysis on what Gingrich’s real appeal to the GOP voters in this election is based on (both how they view the plusses and negatives) is the BEST summary analysis I have seen on him to date!

    SPOT ON!!!! I couldn’t have said it better myself. Muchos Kudos!!!

    joyeagle: In terms of Gingrich’s voting block source, I think you are right in that he gets half establishment and half red meat. My 4 siblings and father all moved his direction with the big swell. His ability to Loudly and unapologetically promote Deep Red’s heartfelt issues wins him over … until they start reviewing his record. And I think his willingness to be more bold also wins overs some of the establishment. But his ability to Loudly misspeak (or speak without thinking or whatever it is) eventually turns both groups off just as well.

  271. avatar
    James M January 5, 2012 at 2:22 pm #

    Scientist: Mitt Romney’s refusal to release his tax returns.

    I can’t really accept the assumptions behind this. If you are entitled to see Mr. Romney’s tax returns, then you should be able to obtain them. If you are not so entitled, then it’s not a matter of his “refusal” at all. Are tax returns public information or private? If I give you my name and contact information, could you possibly confront me with my own tax returns? If not, then I insist that the same rules apply to you, and to Governor Romney. There’s nothing improper or sinister or even suspicious about confidential private records remaining confidential and private. In order to argue this point with me you would first be asked to bring me my tax returns so that I can see that they are public information. Because if they are not public information, it’s not even an appropriate topic of discussion.

  272. avatar
    jayHG January 5, 2012 at 2:24 pm #

    Majority Will: Rick Santorum actually blames the Blah people.Iowa runner-up Rick Santorum said Thursday that he would be “a much bigger player” than expected in the New Hampshire primary and denied saying that he wanted “to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money” in an interview Wednesday night with Fox News.Santorum made the controversial comments when discussing welfare, but maintained that people misheard the word “black” when he stumbled on a word.“I looked at that, and I didn’t say that. If you look at it, what I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and it sort of — blah — came out. And people said I said black.’ I didn’t,” Santorum said.(source: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/202471-santorum-denies-racially-charged-statement-)Thanks for clarifying, Rick. I’ve always had my suspicions about those Blah people.

    Santorum is so ignorant. He said it, it was racist, and he should just say he made a bad choice of words.

    Further, Santorum, you idiot, saying that he doesn’t say :”black” but “African American” is not sweetining the deal, Rick! There’s nothing wrong with either term. It’s the context within which you used “black people.”

    He’s ignorant…….and doesn’t have enough character to just say oops.

  273. avatar
    Scientist January 5, 2012 at 2:35 pm #

    James M: I can’t really accept the assumptions behind this. If you are entitled to see Mr. Romney’s tax returns, then you should be able to obtain them. If you are not so entitled, then it’s not a matter of his “refusal” at all. Are tax returns public information or private?

    Of course they are private legally, but every candidate for President since the 1970s has released their tax returns. Mitt has no legal obligation to release them. But his opponents in both parties are free to point out that he has refused to do what every other candidate has done. Consider the following analogy. Every candidate since ixon and Kennedy have participated in televised debates. Supposing some candidate refuses to do so. Are you saying no one should critcize him for that? That’s silly.

  274. avatar
    Sef January 5, 2012 at 3:02 pm #

    Scientist: Every candidate since Nixon and Kennedy have participated in televised debates.

    Ah, yes! Quemoy and Matsu. The more things change the more they stay the same.

  275. avatar
    Majority Will January 5, 2012 at 3:09 pm #

    James M: Play that sound clip *with* the video for *anyone* who speaks English.Ask them what they heard.

    Compare it to the number of people who hear “scuse me while I kiss this guy”, or “wrapped up like a douche”.I think you’ll get more positive hits on “black”.There is probably an anchoring heuristic at work here because the context is quite strong (we tend to anchor “black” with “welfare” whether we are motivated by our own racist value assumption or not).

    Even trying to be fair, I’m sorry, my bet is on “Black.”And maybe there _is_ a bathroom on the right, and certainly there’s a wino down the road,

    Excellent mondegreens!

    Hold me closer, Tony Danza.

  276. avatar
    G January 5, 2012 at 3:29 pm #

    Well, at least with Paul, you don’t have to worry about the question of whether he’ll still be a contender, come FL.

    There is no doubt that he will still be in the race and on FL’s ballot and still in contention.

    That can only be said about Paul & Romney. All the others still have to fight to organize & prove they will be around and a factor on FL’s ballot.

    So the good news for you is now you don’t have to worry about you and your family holding onto your absentee ballots until the last minute either… πŸ˜‰

    Speaking of Paul, I was really surprised when I dove into the research and started looking at the other upcoming contests and finding out how amazingly well positioned and active he is in some of these other upcoming states already…especially when correlating to finding out how well he did in some of them even in 2008! Everyone else is mainly focused only through FL at this point, although some, (especially Romney) have been able to also give NV some good attention.

    But ME also starts its caucusing on Feb 4 along with NV…and *only* Paul seems to be focused there. (Although ME’s process takes several days, going from Feb 4-10). Same with CO & MN on Feb 7th. (Note: MS also has a caucus on Feb 7th, but it is “non binding” same as the MT one you described and will have a separate Primary on 3/17, which matters for its delegate allocations)

    Heck, the pollsters are pretty much ignoring those other states too. As Paul has a solid and very active operation in all of those locations, the early Feb contests could really be a surprise Paul victory that nobody else sees coming before it happens!

    Not only is this the first period to have multiple contests at one time, but they are ALL caucus states – which require that extra “on the ground” attention to find & get your caucus goers identified, on your side and enthused. More importantly, there is such a *small* window of time to shift focus from FL to them (4 days later…on a Saturday for NV & ME, only 1 week later for the other 3).

    All the media attention and therefore most of the campaigns’ attentions will not be focused on looking at most of these locations until after the big battle in FL has resolved. NV is the only slight exception – as it is considered “first in the West”. The point here is that there will be very little time and effort for campaign organizations to adapt to whatever dynamic is in play after FL and then try to capitalize on it and shift to getting a dedicated ground effort going in several different states at once…particularly when they are also so broadly scattered across the country! I expect all the others will also focus primarily on NV and that will be the “battle”.

    But as I said, Paul’s campaign has a huge head start in all of these and already has such an organization running in all of them that I have to rate him as the surprise odds-on favorite to win everywhere other than NV and still to do quite well in NV as well. If that dynamic holds and plays out…that is one heck of a momentum and shock news story to be in the headlines going into the first big “break period”…as the next contests aren’t until the very END of the month (AZ, MI on 2/28 and WA on 3/3). As I mentioned, Paul’s already got his organization active in all those states..*and* surprisingly strong followings in them as well.

    So in summary, there is this amazing month long period coming up, post FL before we hit Super-Tuesday on 3/6 that is surprisingly in Paul’s favor on various levels. His campaign is used to operating under the radar…and probably even benefits from doing so as well. This sweet spot of early strong Paul states is just sitting there, completely under the radar at this point…while the media and everyone else is focused on the flashy shiny objects both before and after them…

    I’m not a Ron Paul supporter either. This GOP battle is not my fight, so I am primarily coming at this as a fascinated observer and trying to dive into the angles that I think are overlooked by “conventional wisdom”. As I said, I too have always considered Romney to be the “defacto” eventual nominee once the field finalized in Oct, but I’ve become less convinced of that certainty as time has passed and I’ve looked into it.

    In researching Paul from an organizational perspective and growth perspective, I always expected that he would be part of the conversation, simply because he can go the distance and raise lots of money from his dedicated followers. But the sheer scale of how much of a serious organization he has already operating and in so many states…I’m just blown away. I’m also aware of how much the current economic dynamic and war-weariness out there has created a unique environment and window of opportunity that creates a level of receptiveness to the theory of his ideas that otherwise wouldn’t be there.

    In summary, I see a huge disconnect between how much his chances are discounted and how much of a serious real threat he can become – not only in this race, but also in a general election. I do know a lot of Gen Y folks…and yes, that includes some returning military that really like Ron Paul, but will vote for Obama if Paul’s not on the ballot. Right now the “Libertarian phenomenon” has been mostly viewed as aligned with being an internal GOP fight…but it really is unique in many ways and very different from the “Deep Red” base fight with the establishment. A Ron Paul or Gary Johnson candidate is viewed as “capped” in support within the Primary structure (although I think the ceiling of support possible even there is much higher than they want to admit) but I don’t think that cap translates to the GE the same way. I think they could be very competitive and pull votes from both sides & from folks who might not vote otherwise. A whole new and very competitive dynamic that both parties continue to underestimate.

    joyeagle: Thanks for the review of Paul’s showing in 2008. I voted in MT that time around, and I knew he had strong support there, couldn’t remember how well he fared though. They held a caucus and primary last time around. They were concerned about their voice not being heard due to late primary, and opted for a non-binding caucus earlier. I went, but was not able to vote–only “elected” republicans could vote in the caucus. The strong Ron Paul supporters I knew well were in the Constitution Party, so weren’t even voting in the caucus/primary. Now that my Cain bumper stickers are off the cars and in the garage Freezer, I’ll have to go get some Paul Revolution stickers to do my part in Florida.

  277. avatar
    G January 5, 2012 at 3:39 pm #

    I’m with Scientist 100% on this.

    As a pragmatic, I care about business moving forward in this government and have little tolerance for such petty partisan stalling and blocking of appointments. These have not been “controversial” candidates in any of the traditional sense. The sheer volume of blocks at all levels of appointments is outrageous – it is simply trying to prevent a government from being able to function. Heck, I consider such petty intentional gumming of the works tantamount to treason, personally.

    They’ve forced a president to have no choice but to use any other tools at his disposal to do the job of administering and running the country by having to go around a broken and dysfunctional congress. Also, these are tools that other presidents have been able to use with less pushback in the past and have used more frequently and under less difficult circumstances.

    As long as they continue to obstruct, I support him him taking even bolder and more frequent efforts to do what needs to be done to enable the departments of government to function and carry out the jobs they are tasked with doing.

    Scientist: I know you are being facetious, but I want to set the record straight.First, Obama has made fewer recess appointments than any recentPresident. Second, the Republicans swore to block, not just this particular person, but ANYONE Obama would appoint to that office.An office whose job it is to actually look out for consumers as opposed to banks.

  278. avatar
    G January 5, 2012 at 3:46 pm #

    Can you explain your math here? How are they down by three?

    Of the 7 main contenders, only Bachmann has dropped out of the race.

    Therefore, I count 6 still competing: Romney, Huntsman, Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry.

    After NH, I expect there will still be at least 5. Only Huntsman’s fate is truly tied to there.

    SC has more potential to winnow. It truly is Perry’s last stand. Unless he pulls one heck of a comeback there, I expect SC to end his efforts, same as IA did to Bachmann. Santorum & Newt’s fates also depend on doing well there.

    Romney and Paul continue on to FL regardless. Who else can stay in to join them there remains to be seen.

    bovril: Seven dwarves a running
    Now down to three less crazy
    No anal leakage

  279. avatar
    J. Potter January 5, 2012 at 3:52 pm #

    G: simply trying to prevent a government from being able to function.

    Absolutely! Business sees efficient, proactive government as a form of competition, even a constraint, ultimately an enemy. A bumbling, inept, corrupt government can be turned from competition into a cashcow. You better believe all this foolishness is very intentional.

  280. avatar
    ellen January 5, 2012 at 4:51 pm #

    I believe that smrstrauss might appreciate a little help over at http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=909525113481608842&page=1&token=1325799991696

  281. avatar
    Ballantine January 5, 2012 at 5:15 pm #

    ellen: I believe that smrstrauss might appreciate a little help over at http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=909525113481608842&page=1&token=1325799991696

    Been there, done that and it is a waste of time. No one likes an honest debate more than me but one cannot debate someone like him. When he is shown to be wrong, he just doubles down even if it means re-defining terms and re-writing language. For example, when someone won’t admit that “all free persons born in Virginia are citizens” means all free persons born in Virginia are citizens one is just wasting their breath. It is rather sad actually.

  282. avatar
    J. Potter January 5, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

    ellen: I believe that smrstrauss might appreciate a little help over at http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=909525113481608842&page=1&token=1325799991696

    Same comment, multiple threads, across multiple dates …. looooooooks (and smells!) like SPAM!

  283. avatar
    gorefan January 5, 2012 at 7:48 pm #

    Ballantine: For example, when someone won’t admit that “all free persons born in Virginia are citizens” means all free persons born in Virginia are citizens one is just wasting their breath. It is rather sad actually.

    That recent Donofrio article with the 1811 Alexandria Herald letter from Publius actually says the Virginia Law of 1792 (virtually identical to the 1779 law) was a jus soli law in which an alien, like a citizen, can beget a citizen.

    J. Potter: SPAM!

    Actually, it is link to Mario’s site and comments. And smrstrauss doesn’t appear to need any help.

  284. avatar
    richCares January 5, 2012 at 10:23 pm #

    Dean Haskin’s Birther issue is built around a girl who was born the same day
    as Obama, but in a different hospital, and in a different city with a different
    BC number. That is brilliant, Haskin nails it, what a genius, the frog marching
    is any day now. Congrats Haskins!
    Reference BC numbers:
    Ah’Nee – 09945 – August 23rd
    Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – August 5th
    Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638 – August 5th
    Obama, Barack – 10641 – August 4th
    Stig, Waidelich, – 10920 – August 5th
    Sunahara, Virginia – 11080- August 4, 1961
    note how they line up alphabetical order!

  285. avatar
    The Magic M January 6, 2012 at 10:03 am #

    > note how they line up alphabetical order!

    No, since Stig is the first name. His last name starts with a “W”, thus he comes behind Sunahara.
    So either Waidelich or Sunahara are “out of order”.

  286. avatar
    The Magic M January 6, 2012 at 10:06 am #

    (Maybe for some reason Sunahara’s BC belongs to the September batch – heaven knows what happens with infants that died the next day, or in this specific instance. Either way it’ speculation, nothing that will hold a birther case.)

  287. avatar
    Obsolete January 6, 2012 at 10:51 am #

    Haskins has us by the gonads and we all know it! I say we give up now and spill the truth to save us from a life in prison due to misprision of felony!

  288. avatar
    J. Potter January 6, 2012 at 11:04 am #

    I just dropped by birtherreport for the heck of it, and noticed this hysterical juxtaposition above all the comment boxes:

    _____________________________

    Post a Comment

    “As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.”

    – Elijah Parish Lovejoy (1802-1837)

    I am forced to moderate the comments at this site due to the Obama defenders constant porn spam and threatening comments.

    ______________________________

    These guys are super-smooth.

  289. avatar
    richCares January 6, 2012 at 11:21 am #

    “No, since Stig is the first name. His last name starts with a “W”, thus he comes behind Sunahara.”
    .
    sorry, does that mean frog marching? Dean Haskin’s Birther issue is built around a girl who was born the same day as Obama, but in a different hospital, and in a different city with a different BC number. That is brilliant, what a genius, the frog marching is any day now. Congrats Haskins!

  290. avatar
    The Magic M January 6, 2012 at 11:47 am #

    richCares: does that mean frog marching?

    No. πŸ™‚ The worst (for us) thing birfers could draw from this is “nobody knows how Hawaii assigns those numbers”.
    But in their world, that amounts to “it’s all forged”, so let them live with the happy delusion. πŸ˜‰

  291. avatar
    richCares January 6, 2012 at 12:35 pm #

    “That is brilliant, what a genius, the frog marching is any day now. ”
    .
    Haskins found a copy of the little girl’s death certificate and lo and behold the BC number is hand wriiten, yes hand written BC NUM on the death certificate. He proudly shows a picture of this on his site***. Haskins really nailed it now, time to commence with the frog marching, I ran out to the pet store and bought 6 frogs, now to teach them to march
    .
    blockbuster stuff on Haskin’s site, he is so excited, he claims his suit on the dead girls’s BC is a “slam dunk”, proof Positive that Obama is _________.
    .
    ***it has layers

  292. avatar
    J. Potter January 6, 2012 at 12:49 pm #

    richCares: He proudly shows a picture of this on his site***.

    Yes, I loved the photo of him at the girl’s grave. Which is creepier, Haskins or Duncan Sunahara?

    Yeccch.

  293. avatar
    Obsolete January 6, 2012 at 1:46 pm #

    So birthers have proof that Obama stole Virginia Sunahara’s identity, and has been going by her name? Birthers do understand what identity theft is, and how it works, right?

  294. avatar
    ellen January 6, 2012 at 3:06 pm #

    J. Potter said, in response to several posts from me:

    Same comment, multiple threads, across multiple dates …. looooooooks (and smells!) like SPAM!

    Answer: Sorry about that, but smrstrauss appears to be the only anti-birther on that site, and is replying to the comments of Puzzo1 (Mario Apuzzo) and several others who deem themselves birther constitutional specialists.

  295. avatar
    J. Potter January 6, 2012 at 3:24 pm #

    ellen: Sorry about that, but smrstrauss appears to be the only anti-birther on that site,

    If that was intended as an “SOS,” that’s admirable, but why not just post once on the “Open Thread”?

  296. avatar
    BatGuano January 6, 2012 at 3:52 pm #

    just heard that orly got shut down in hawaii after only 45minutes. waiting on details.

  297. avatar
    richCares January 6, 2012 at 4:17 pm #

    “just heard that orly got shut down in hawaii after only 45minutes. waiting on details..”
    .
    Orly called the Hawaii Attorney General a traitor, The AG requested the judge issue sanctions, the judge responded with can’t do that on a verbal request, please put it in writing (which AG will do) someone said Orly was crying!
    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/taitz-v-fuddy-motion-for-rehearing-denied/

  298. avatar
    G January 6, 2012 at 4:45 pm #

    Hilarious! Boy, I hope a tape surfaces of that performance!

    More importantly, I sure hope the AG does follow up with a written sanction request. Long overdue!!!

    richCares:
    “just heard that orly got shut down in hawaii after only 45minutes. waiting on details..”
    .
    Orly called the Hawaii Attorney General a traitor, The AG requested the judge issue sanctions, the judge responded with can’t do that on a verbal request, please put it in writing (which AG will do) someone said Orly was crying!
    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/taitz-v-fuddy-motion-for-rehearing-denied/

  299. avatar
    J. Potter January 6, 2012 at 4:46 pm #

    richCares: … someone said Orly was crying!

    Well, at least she got another trip to Hawaii out of the deal. What a sacrifice for the cause.

  300. avatar
    NBC January 6, 2012 at 5:09 pm #

    Santorum the taliban Dominionst

    Our civil laws have to comport with the Higher Law.”

    Well Joy?

  301. avatar
    joyeagle January 6, 2012 at 5:46 pm #

    Well, at least he’s got that right. But I still disagree with him on foreign policy and the severity of our economic situation. I watched that whole forum live. I thought it was the most insightful into each man/woman of them all.

    NBC:
    Santorum the taliban Dominionst

    Our civil laws have to comport with the Higher Law.”

    Well Joy?

  302. avatar
    G January 6, 2012 at 6:39 pm #

    Joyeagle, I will take serious issue with you on this.

    This isn’t just an area where you are simply entitled to your opinion, it is an area where you are utterly wrong in the basis of fact.

    Our Constitution is NOT tied to any particular religion or its Holy Books whatsoever at all. Our laws stand apart and on their own – completely separate from any religion.

    Whether people also subscribe to some “Higher Law” in their personal life or whether they see a personal correlation between the beliefs and teaching of their Holy Books and how they are able to personal relate to the laws at hand are fine, but they are utterly irrelevant to the mandate and authority of the law itself.

    Neither the Holy Bible nor the Koran nor any other religious writing supercedes how our Nation’s laws work or operate on a National level and in an official capacity – NOR should they. In fact, our Constitution expressly forbids that.

    Further, Rick Santorum was also wrong in his second statement, implying that the Bible is against Abortion.

    The religious arguments of the Anti-Abortion movement are a fairly modern day addition to certain religious followers and do NOT actually come from the Bible as source text at all. At least not in any consistent way with how the same religious folk will tout the words of scripture to justify many other causes. Within the texts of the Christian Bible, there are many examples of babies being killed or not valued at the point of birth and God being ok with that or even justifying that. Nothing in the Bible about loss of a child during conception or pregnancy being murder or even illegal or even unacceptible to the societies at the time.

    A more scholarly argument about the Bible would pretty much be sumarized by saying that the Biblical view doesn’t even grant personhood status until several months AFTER a child has been been born.

    joyeagle:
    Well, at least he’s got that right.But I still disagree with him on foreign policy and the severity of our economic situation.I watched that whole forum live.I thought it was the most insightful into each man/woman of them all.

  303. avatar
    NBC January 6, 2012 at 6:43 pm #

    joyeagle: Well, at least he’s got that right.

    And yet you objected to the term Taliban and Dominionist..

    You are not very consistent are you?

  304. avatar
    NBC January 6, 2012 at 6:44 pm #

    joyeagle: . I thought it was the most insightful into each man/woman of them all.

    That should tell you a lot about the quality of this year’s Republican contenders… As I said before, the Republican Party is not interested in winning the 2013 presidency, the contenders are lining up for 2017.

  305. avatar
    Scientist January 6, 2012 at 6:57 pm #

    G: The religious arguments of the Anti-Abortion movement are a fairly modern day addition to certain religious followers and do NOT actually come from the Bible as source text at all. At least not in any consistent way with how the same religious folk will tout the words of scripture to justify many other causes. Within the texts of the Christian Bible, there are many examples of babies being killed or not valued at the point of birth and God being ok with that or even justifying that. Nothing in the Bible about loss of a child during conception or pregnancy being murder or even illegal or even unacceptible to the societies at the time.

    In English Common Law and US law when the Constitution was weritten, abortion was completely unrestricted up until the “quickening”, when the fetus’s movements could be felt, which is late second trimester. Restrictions on abortion were a relatively short-lived phenomenon from the late 19th century.

    I invite joyeagle to describe to us how he sees the practicalitiies playing out. Outlawing abortion would no more stop women from havinng them than outlawiing drugs stops people from taking them. Well-off women would go to luxury clinics in the Caribbean or to Canada, Mexico, Europe or Asia. Poor women would go to underground abortionists or doctors who would write it up as D &C which is exactly what used to happen. it would be a financial boon for offshore clinics. And don’t forget RU486 and other drugs. You think that you can stop them coming into the country? just like they stop marijuana and cocaine and heroin, right? Except a few hundered pills can fit in a pocket and each one can end a pregnancy.

    So, make your “moral statement” . But if you try to actually enforce the laws, you will have a mess. Not a shadow of a doubt. just llike Irelland,, whiich had no choice but to llegalize it.

  306. avatar
    joyeagle January 6, 2012 at 7:01 pm #

    Well, I am sure we differ in our understanding/revelation and foundation of what Christianity and the Bible is all about, and that’s all right. I won’t digress into that … that is just too far a tangent.
    I am sure that Senator’s Santorum’s statements are completely consistent with the words and intent of our founders and founding documents. I may disagree with him on the route to change within our society. I think the society must change from within itself, and then be reflected in law and government, not vice versa.
    I am not a “dominionist” … but I do know that the founders often expressed this nation’s dependence on God, and the morality of our society, and found it completely acceptable for states to have established religions–just not the federal government.
    I don’t have time right here and now to source this all out, but it is easy enough to read up on. I have to get ready for another extended business trip, but I hope to have time to post during my trip.

    G:
    Joyeagle, I will take serious issue with you on this.

    This isn’t just an area where you are simply entitled to your opinion, it is an area where you are utterly wrong in the basis of fact.

    A more scholarly argument about the Bible would pretty much be sumarized by saying that the Biblical view doesn’t even grant personhood status until several months AFTER a child has been been born.

  307. avatar
    joyeagle January 6, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    I hear that opinion on here a lot … but don’t believe it. I predict a republican win regardless of the candidate. (Unless along the way the republican establishment completely trashes Ron Paul following along the way and he isn’t the nominee).

    NBC: That should tell you a lot about the quality of this year’s Republican contenders… As I said before, the Republican Party is not interested in winning the 2013 presidency, the contenders are lining up for 2017.

  308. avatar
    JPotter January 6, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

    joyeagle:
    I hear that opinion on here a lot … but don’t believe it.I predict a republican win regardless of the candidate.(Unless along the way the republican establishment completely trashes Ron Paul following along the way and he isn’t the nominee).

    You predict a Red win regardless of candidate … unless the candidate isn’t Ron Paul?
    Ummm …. [scratching head]

  309. avatar
    Scientist January 6, 2012 at 7:13 pm #

    joyeagle ducked my invitationn to discuss the practicalities of banning abortion. He seems only to be interested in abstractions.

  310. avatar
    NBC January 6, 2012 at 7:14 pm #

    joyeagle:
    I am sure that Senator’s Santorum’s statements are completely consistent with the words and intent of our founders and founding documents.

    I understand that you may be sure but I suffer from intellectual curiosity, a condition which causes me to venture beyond what I or others think and try to find support for said opinion. But first of all, help me understand how this position differs in any meaningful manner from the Taliban position?

  311. avatar
    NBC January 6, 2012 at 7:25 pm #

    God who gave us rights also gave us a responsibility and laws by which our civil laws have to comport with. A higher law. God’s law

    Santorum would require rape victims who become pregnant, to carry the child to term for example.

    I fail to see so far that I was much wrong about calling him our Taliban candidate.

  312. avatar
    NBC January 6, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

    Santorum again

    We need to define it and say what it is. And it is evil. Sharia law is incompatible with American jurisprudence and our Constitution.”…

    Santorum added, “Sharia law is not just a religious code. It is also a governmental code. It happens to be both religious in nature an origin, but it is a civil code. And it is incompatible with the civil code of the United States.”…

    Fascinating how he can hold these opinions and not realize how self-contradictory they are.

  313. avatar
    JPotter January 6, 2012 at 7:48 pm #

    Scientist:
    joyeagle ducked my invitationn to discuss the practicalities of banning abortion.He seems only to be interested in abstractions.

    To a fundamentalist mindset, principle always outweighs practicality. Principles must never, ever, ever be compromised. If taking a stand on principle appears to result causing more harm than good, up to and including self-destruction, then your values are in err.

    For this and other reasons, fundamentalism is irrational.

    Of course, the ultimate joke is, the principles morph over time as the groupthink moves through time and its environment changes, but as long as the group has an “other” to stand against, revision to their own principles (both compromises and retrenchments) are easily glossed over.

  314. avatar
    JPotter January 6, 2012 at 7:49 pm #

    NBC:
    Santorum again

    Fascinating how he can hold these opinions and not realize how self-contradictory they are.

    Oh, they’re not so contradictory. He used the word ‘incompatible’ both times!

  315. avatar
    G January 6, 2012 at 8:38 pm #

    A quick correction that is important: The “Founders” were not some monolithic bunch by any stretch.

    Some “Founders” certainly had strong religious preferences and views. A number of others simply did not. Quite a few were Diests.

    The entire process of arriving at all of our “Founding Documents” was quite a contentious one. Not unlike how Congress works to come together from various different viewpoints and interests in order to make Bills…or at least how Congress is supposed to function and used to function.

    The colonies at that time were also a diverse bunch. Of course, those colonies that were more strongly started or populated early on with highly-religious groups fleeing persecution in the Old World would have a stronger religious bent to the pre-US colonial forms of government. Many of the other states had different basis in their founding, often tied to capital trade. So they were simply less religious in their founding. Regardless, when the colonies separated from England but then decided to form a Union, they eventually put in place new State Constitutions to conform within the standards and constraints of the US Constitution. Bottom line: doesn’t matter what different rules they may have individually operated under in those early formative years. Once the U.S. was agreed upon and put in place, ALL states ALSO had to conform. In other words, none of the states within the US has a religion-based legal foundation today. They too are constrained to conform within the boundary and guidelines set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

    So again, you can only argue that certain individuals within the “Founding Fathers” felt that way. But what matters is the agreement they came to at the end of the day – the US Constitution. And that clearly is a secular construction with clear separations between church and state.

    joyeagle: I am not a “dominionist” … but I do know that the founders often expressed this nation’s dependence on God, and the morality of our society, and found it completely acceptable for states to have established religions–just not the federal government.

  316. avatar
    Scientist January 6, 2012 at 8:42 pm #

    JPotter: To a fundamentalist mindset, principle always outweighs practicality.

    And that’s how Prohibition came in. Alcohol is immoral so it must be banned. The fact that it would leave to an epidemic of crime and the insane spectacle of amending the Constitution only to un-amend it a decade later be damned. Make no mistake banning abortion is harder to do than drugs or alcohol. People who use drugs and alcohol do so on a daily basis. Few women will have more than 1 or 2 abortions in a lifetime. Circumventing the laws will be a piece of cake.

  317. avatar
    G January 6, 2012 at 8:46 pm #

    I don’t have a problem with everyone having different opinons. These are all valid matters of just that – opinion. Arguments can be made for and against why a certain person could beat someone else and how they could grow or lose their support along the way.

    The basic truth is that we simply don’t know all the dynamics that will be in play, both in terms of the existing GOP Primary contest and even more so in the eventual General Election contest. Nobody should be over confident or overly discount that these results are simply not certain nor guaranteed and that many situations, both by the candidates and by factors outside of everyone’s control, will come into play in ways that we simply cannot yet forsee or predict.

    Therefore, I fully support everyone’s right to root and support the candidate of their choice and I look forward for now to sitting back and enjoying both the spectacle and also the exciting proof of our participative structure and freedoms in effect as “spin” and “polls” give way to more and more ballots by Americans being cast and being the true voice of the people speaking and making their decisions heard!

    JPotter: You predict a Red win regardless of candidate … unless the candidate isn’t Ron Paul?
    Ummm …. [scratching head]

  318. avatar
    G January 6, 2012 at 9:03 pm #

    My views on these issues are along similar lines. Laws such as Prohibition, whether well-intended by some or not, only restrict freedoms and cause crime and black markets to flourish. They also always end up undermining the rule of law, as they are not truly enforceable in a consistent way, without being utterly intolerable to live under. Therefore, they just erode confidence in government as hypocricy and endless “exceptions” and “looking the other way” for a certain class of privileged people inevitably creep in…

    Bottom line – you can’t legislate morality – period.

    People who are concerned with acting or behaving in a certain moral way are free to live their own lives by that code and standard. That is what our freedoms guarantee and protect their ability to do. But they do NOT have the right to force their moral views onto others and make those that don’t share their concerns adhere to their ways.

    I’ve never smoked pot in my life and just simply have no interest in doing so. However, I know lots of people who do. Most of them are responsible and handle it just fine. With all things, some folks just can’t handle certain things and some folks don’t seem to be able to do anything in moderation…but those problems lie with that individual’s own limitations or failings.

    I think a lot of the problem we currently have today in our courts and jails and crime that is out there is due to what is basically Prohibition of another sort classified as the “War on Drugs”. Legalize pot and everything that isn’t totally overly addictive/dangerous on just minor occasional use and I think we’ll see a huge reduction in crime as a result…plus a huge boon to our tax base and debt – as I think there is justification for a certain level of luxury tax rates on certain “luxury” products.

    The base resistance to legalization of pot seems to stem from those who were raised on the propoganda of the “Reefer Madness” scare-era. Interestingly, much of the true motivation behind pushing to outlaw MJ stemmed from the power of the tree-paper industry, threatened by hemp as competition…

    So I definitely see that an area where legalization will continue to grow in support as those older generations brainwashed with such propaganda fade from a base of power and sway… the trend lines seem to easily support that. If it is still illegal in the 2020s, I’ll be surprised…

    Scientist: And that’s how Prohibition came in.Alcohol is immoral so it must be banned.The fact that it would leave to an epidemic of crime and the insane spectacle of amending the Constitution only to un-amend it a decade later be damned.Make no mistake banning abortion is harder to do than drugs or alcohol.People who use drugs and alcoholdo so on a daily basis.Few women will have more than 1 or 2 abortions in a lifetime.Circumventing the laws will be a piece of cake.

  319. avatar
    joyeagle January 6, 2012 at 10:38 pm #

    I’m not really ducking, as much as I don’t have a formulated response yet. You’ve given me new issues to think on that I haven’t thought through before. Some more relevant than others … but overall I am stumped.

    Scientist:
    joyeagle ducked my invitationn to discuss the practicalities of banning abortion.He seems only to be interested in abstractions.

  320. avatar
    joyeagle January 6, 2012 at 10:46 pm #

    Wow. Too big of a question to answer in one posting for sure, but I’ll give it a quick rejoinder.

    Taliban is evil, repressive and wrong.
    Judeo-Christian ethics, morals and ideas is exactly what the constitution was formed on and adheres to. It’s really not that difficult.

    NBC: I understand that you may be sure but I suffer from intellectual curiosity, a condition which causes me to venture beyond what I or others think and try to find support for said opinion. But first of all, help me understand how this position differs in any meaningful manner from the Taliban position?

  321. avatar
    G January 7, 2012 at 12:12 am #

    But that’s not actually true. So you are wrong on this.

    That is just one of those memes that get’s passed around and also has been unscrupulously promoted in certain religious circles, with a lot of intentional “revisionist” history to make folks think that.

    Like many of the other things you have been taken in on, simply because you trusted those sources, I suspect you have just been innocently duped into buying into these myths.

    Here is just one example of the prominent Religious Revisionists that have worked hard to propagate this mythical version of US History:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_(author)

    But look into the actual truth of it – NO.

    FACT: The primary groups of religious beliefs in America fall under the Judeo-Christian category. Therefore, there have always been a large percentage of the US population that practices these faiths and holds these beliefs.

    HOWEVER – That is NOT the same at all as this nation or its founding documents being founded on that! Again, the “Founding Fathers” were a vast and diverse group. Some of them were very religious and religion likely shaped their thoughts. Nothing unusual or atypical there. But NOT ALL were. Quite a few were NOT very religious at all or held different views. Quite a few definitely classified themselves as Deists, a very different and much more “neutral” view of the place of God and religion in society.

    In the end, the vast body of differing views and opinions that we call the “Founding Fathers” arrived at a final document we call The Constitution. Like legislation today, it passed muster and approval and became the Law of the Land, simply because the majority threshold rules for its passage were obtained. A minority number of the “Founding Fathers” disagreed – not only during the process, but also in its passage. There are those that voted AGAINST it. There are also those that were so opposed, that they outright left in protest during the process. The entire process was long, arduous and very contentious.

    FACT – The final product is what matters and is The Constitution we know today. It is a SECULAR document and clearly so, as its only references to religion are in the SPECIFIC mentions within that BAR religion from being within the sphere of government influence.

    TRUISM – Only a Secular-based foundation of law can truly protect the religious freedoms of all. The alternative to such is favoring one brand of religion over another and THAT is exactly what the Founders in the end agreed to prevent.

    So I hate to inform you again, but what you’ve been led to believe is NOT what actually happened or how this nation actually came about.

    joyeagle: Judeo-Christian ethics, morals and ideas is exactly what the constitution was formed on and adheres to. It’s really not that difficult.

  322. avatar
    Keith January 7, 2012 at 2:55 am #

    Scientist: If you truly consider it murder, then I hope you won’t shy away from prosecuting EVERY woman who has an abortion for 1st degree murder (since it is pre-meditated) and from imposing the death penalty

    And beginning with Mrs. Santorum?

  323. avatar
    Keith January 7, 2012 at 2:58 am #

    Daniel: No offense taken, and thank you for asking,

    Joyeagle just wants to know so they can figure out how to purge you too.

  324. avatar
    Scientist January 7, 2012 at 4:39 am #

    joyeagle: Judeo-Christian ethics, morals and ideas is exactly what the constitution was formed on and adheres to. It’s really not that difficult

    The Constitution was not based on ethics and morals at all. It was in fact an attempt to deal with the fact that humans would often behave unethically and immorally. Madison said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Things like checks and balances were instituted as a practical response to human failings.

    joyeagle: Taliban is evil, repressive and wrong.

    But they’re just enforcing God’s law as they see it. And frankly, the commandments of Allah, relayed by Mohammed, are pretty darned close to Judeo-Christian commandments. Let’s take a concrete example. Both condemn homosexuality. Now the Taliban would stone gays and most Christians would not advocate going quite that far, you might say. OK, but Ron Paul accepted support from a minister who advocates the death penalty for gays. The “Christian” government in Uganda, one that many US fundamentalists support, imposes long jail terms and even death for homosexuality. And gay sex was criminalized in sodomy laws in the US which were only over-turned very recently. So the difference is at best one of degree, rather than kind.

  325. avatar
    Keith January 7, 2012 at 6:01 am #

    James M: Play that sound clip *with* the video for *anyone* who speaks English.Ask them what they heard.

    Compare it to the number of people who hear “scuse me while I kiss this guy”, or “wrapped up like a douche”.I think you’ll get more positive hits on “black”.There is probably an anchoring heuristic at work here because the context is quite strong (we tend to anchor “black” with “welfare” whether we are motivated by our own racist value assumption or not).

    Even trying to be fair, I’m sorry, my bet is on “Black.”And maybe there _is_ a bathroom on the right, and certainly there’s a wino down the road,

    Ahh! The Mondagreen!

  326. avatar
    Keith January 7, 2012 at 6:13 am #

    NBC:
    Santorum the taliban Dominionst

    Our civil laws have to comport with the Higher Law.”

    Well Joy?

    Well he is correct. Our civil laws DO have to comport with the Constitution.

  327. avatar
    Scientist January 7, 2012 at 7:35 am #

    joyeagle: Judeo-Christian ethics, morals and ideas is exactly what the constitution was formed on and adheres to. It’s really not that difficult.

    Then why didn’t the Constitution specify a monarchy? After all,The Bible speaks of King David and Christ the King, not President David and Christ the President.

  328. avatar
    RuhRoh January 7, 2012 at 9:05 am #

    Montgomery Blair Sibley has become a Birther! http://www.mmdnewswire.com/montgomery-blair-sibley-81157.html

    He’s apparently following the theory that Obama is ineligible because his father was not a US citizen.

  329. avatar
    Majority Will January 7, 2012 at 10:02 am #

    RuhRoh:
    Disbarred District of Columbia attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley and birther, who wants to start a medical marijuana cultivation center in the nation’s capital, is running for the White House!

    He’s apparently following the theory that Obama is ineligible because his father was not a US citizen.

    FIFY

    (yawn)

  330. avatar
    RuhRoh January 7, 2012 at 10:10 am #

    @Majority Will:
    No mention of his super-sized genitalia forcing him to wear kilts? LOL

  331. avatar
    Majority Will January 7, 2012 at 10:33 am #

    RuhRoh:
    @Majority Will:
    No mention of his super-sized genitalia forcing him to wear kilts? LOL

    “I don’t know why men wear pants.”
    – M.B. Sibley

  332. avatar
    Zachary Bravos January 7, 2012 at 11:54 am #

    I am really disappointed in the new WND website. I can’t seem to find the comments to the articles. They have always been one of my favorite sources of entertainment and now I miss them. Am I overlooking them somehow? Sometimes I just need a little more cowbell.

  333. avatar
    sfjeff January 7, 2012 at 12:53 pm #

    Anyone have more information about Orly’s latest slapdown in Hawaii- I want details.

  334. avatar
    Majority Will January 7, 2012 at 12:56 pm #

    Zachary Bravos:
    I am really disappointedin the new WND website.I can’t seem to find the comments to the articles.They have always been one of my favorite sources of entertainment and now I miss them.Am I overlooking them somehow? Sometimes I just need a little more cowbell.

    WND is probably still trying to figure out how to censor comments like before without making it look obvious.

    Birther comments looked like they were talking to themselves like babbling mental patients with the censored posts of facts and actual history and law removed.

    I guess WND realized that they had inadvertently found a way to make birthers look even more idiotic than they accomplished on their own.

  335. avatar
    JPotter January 7, 2012 at 1:10 pm #

    sfjeff:
    Anyone have more information about Orly’s latest slapdown in Hawaii- I want details.

    Most I have seen:
    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/taitz-v-fuddy-motion-for-rehearing-denied/

    Hope someone else has more….
    Popcorn getting stale.

  336. avatar
    G January 7, 2012 at 2:07 pm #

    In addition to JPotter’s link, this adds some more details:

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/taitz-v-fuddy-the-dunford-files-orlys-second-visit-to-hi-court/#more-21321

    sfjeff:
    Anyone have more information about Orly’s latest slapdown in Hawaii- I want details.

  337. avatar
    G January 7, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

    LOL! And he’s attempting a write-in campaign to run for President too! Add another asylum inmate to the list of pretend candidates…

    He’s been tied to ODS swill smears since the very beginning. Nobody is surprised to see him pull a Birther stunt.

    The guy is clearly a mental patient on the loose.

    RuhRoh:
    Montgomery Blair Sibley has become a Birther! http://www.mmdnewswire.com/montgomery-blair-sibley-81157.html

    He’s apparently following the theory that Obama is ineligible because his father was not a US citizen.

  338. avatar
    Daniel January 7, 2012 at 2:54 pm #

    joyeagle: Judeo-Christian ethics, morals and ideas is exactly what the constitution was formed on and adheres to. It’s really not that difficult.

    Why is it that people like this always refer to “Judeo-Christian” ethiics and morality, as if only Judeo-Christians had the types of ethics referred to?

    What joyeagle refers to as “Judeo-Christian” ethics are more precisely “human” ethics, since practically every religion and society on earth, through all time, have practiced and/or codified the same thing.

    A goodly portion of English Common Law has it’s origins in Brehon Law, which is ancient and completely Pagan.

    Only two of the oft cited and drooled over Ten Commandments are represented in American law… you do the math.

    I’m glad that our founding fathers specifically declared that the US was not, in any way, a Christian nation. I’m glad we don’t kill unruly children, or stone adulteress women, or give rape victims to their rapists.

    Plus I kind of like ham.

  339. avatar
    Joey January 7, 2012 at 3:13 pm #

    Man, there are so many lawsuits being filed these days that its really hard to keep up with them all.
    Luckily there’s The Fogbow which seems to list them all and update on a daily basis.
    This current flurry of ballot challenges has the birthers frothing at the mouth.

  340. avatar
    John C. Drew, Ph.D. January 7, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

    – joyeagle

    I thought I’d wander over here and give you some support. As a political scientist who has taught American government and published on child welfare and protective programs, I can assure people that you are 100% correct in saying that the U.S. Constitution was founded on Judeo-Christian ideas. The original colonies, in fact, were based on different branches of Christianity.

    The suggestion that the U.S. Constitution does not have its roots in Christianity is absolutely absurd.

    FYI: In my experience, these threads often work out better if at least two libertarians or conservatives are posting at the same time. Many of the same things liberals are saying about you are being said about me in other areas of this website.

    [Normally I don’t allow discussions about religion because they are off topic for this blog, and they typically spiral out of control. I’m going to permit this comment (which I don’t agree with), and ask that nothing else be said on this topic. Doc.]

  341. avatar
    RuhRoh January 7, 2012 at 6:00 pm #

    G:
    Trying to follow Birther logic gives me a migraine. But if I can follow Sibley’s excuse for “Logic” here, it’s not coincidental that his presidential campaign was launched alongside this lawsuit. He seems to be under the misapprehension that his candidacy affords him standing.

    The only consistency in the Birther movement is in the quality of attorneys….

  342. avatar
    JPotter January 7, 2012 at 6:28 pm #

    G: In addition to JPotter’s link, this adds some more details:

    Thanks, G! Hats off to whoever captures that level of detail. Isn’t the internet wonderful? Although, I didn’t see the bit about Taitz crying, “Traitor!” and resultant possibility of sanctions. But I may have spaced out.

    My personal highlights:

    Orly asked “how is this frivolous”, and stated that it’s unthinkable that this could be frivolous, because it’s the most important thing in history ever.

    Judge Nishimura told Orly that, “Watergate is not new evidence.”

    I especially like the second. May use that for a new catchphrase. πŸ˜‰

  343. avatar
    NBC January 7, 2012 at 6:29 pm #

    Sibley has to overcome the ruling in Orly’s case

    In Taitz v. Obama, 707 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2-4 (D.D.C. 2010), the District Court for the District of Columbia stated that “a quo warranto action against a public official may be brought only by the Attorney General or the U.S. Attorney.” Id. at 3 (citing Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1498 (D.C. Cir. 1984)).

    Also in Drake/Keyes/Barnett v Obama 9th Circuit dismissed, the court outlined potential instances in which a Candidate may have standing. In my opinion, the Quo Warranto against the President for 2009-2012 is too late and precluded by the above finding in Taitz v Obama and a mandamus is too late as Sibley is no longer a candidate for the office in question. For 2013- Sibley may be able to argue that there is standing even though he has little real chance to gain the office of the presidency as a write-in candidate. As to Quo Warranto, he will have to wait until President Obama wins the 2012 elections and is sworn in. Read more here

    All in all, quite interesting. Sibley also has quite a rich legal history including suspension to practice law, and so on.

  344. avatar
    Majority Will January 7, 2012 at 9:13 pm #

    RuhRoh:
    G:
    Trying to follow Birther logic gives me a migraine. But if I can follow Sibley’s excuse for “Logic” here, it’s not coincidental that his presidential campaign was launched alongside this lawsuit. He seems to be under the misapprehension that his candidacy affords him standing.

    The only consistency in the Birther movement is in the quality of attorneys….

    Like some self-promoting birthers (Apuzzo, Taitz, Donofrio, et. al.), they seem to be little more than attention whores regardless of how ridiculous their claims and goals.

  345. avatar
    G January 8, 2012 at 12:58 am #

    Yeah, I’d say that seems to be a fairly common thread here.

    Also – to give additional follow-up to RuhRoh (H/T for the great Scooby-Doo reference, btw), yeah, trying to follow logic where logic is not part of the calculus at all will definitely give one a migrane! It really comes down to this – Birtherism is merely an irrational emotional negative response by those with darkness and weakness in their hearts. Logic simply doesn’t come into play…they may have an agenda and motive to their smears, but it is not really based in logic in any sense of that word…a petty and retarted form of machivellian reasoning at best, but certainly not truly logical…

    Majority Will: Like some self-promoting birthers (Apuzzo, Taitz, Donofrio, et. al.), they seem to be little more than attention whores regardless of how ridiculous their claims and goals.

  346. avatar
    aarrgghh January 8, 2012 at 1:05 am #

    NBC: the Republican Party is not interested in winning the 2013 presidency, the contenders are lining up for 2017.

    just wanted to pop in and pick up on a persistent meme that bothers me: the idea that the gop loses elections because they didn’t want to win or didn’t try hard enough. one side taking a dive is a popular meme in elections and one we heard after both gore’s and kerry’s losses to the seeming featherweight junior bush. there’s a strong whiff of conspiracy theory in it which implies that the losers really can win any time they want but for ulterior reasons choose not to.

    but despite the hyperbole, we aren’t living in a totalitarian regime that can guarantee such outcomes. to invoke rumsfeld, you go in with the army you’ve got, not the one you hope for. the rewards of victory — trillions of dollars in taxpayer funds to play with — are just too great, especially at the presidential level, to think that the contestants don’t want to win and aren’t playing hardball using every tool in the shed. the incumbent party in particular always stands the most to lose, since there’s no guarantee that once knocked out of the driver’s seat, they can just hop back in at any time of their own choosing. there’s still such a thing as miscalculation and incompetence and simple blind chance — a concept conspiracy theorists have a very hard time with. sometimes the dice roll the wrong way no matter how powerful you are.

    unfortunately for the gop of this millenium, they have grown far too cynical and corrupt to focus on anything but grabbing as much power as they can as quickly as they can. as the charade becomes more transparent, the more disgusted and alienated the electorate becomes. a pathological aversion to self-reflection — since “conservatism never fails; you can only fail conservatism!” — keeps the party from even admitting, much less correcting, its mistakes and locked on course towards certain fracture. mccain lost to obama not because the gop thought an economic collapse would be a good time to hang it all on the janitor; they lost because mccain/palin was a genuinely horrifying ticket. this season’s gop primary has already shaped up into something even more horrid; to invoke paul krugman, their platform has devolved so far from not just what the majority wants but from reality that it can’t be peddled by anyone but liars, fools and clowns so pathetic they disgust even their own willing marks.

    and that’s why the gop will lose again in 2012. not because it’s part of their plan and not because they don’t want to, but because they can’t.

  347. avatar
    G January 8, 2012 at 1:35 am #

    I agree with your points and what you said. I also think you said it very well.

    The only point of contention is I do think it is fair to say that many of those individuals in the GOP who were looked to to jump in this race (and chose not to) came to that personal decision in some part due to both feeling that a) Obama would be tough to beat and b) being President in 2013 would not be as “fun” as they would like, due to there being so many major problems that need fixing. So, in that particular sense, I do think the perceived GOP “heavy weights” intentionally took a pass on this cycle. But there is certainly no actual conspiracy in that calculus.

    aarrgghh: unfortunately for the gop of this millenium, they have grown far too cynical and corrupt to focus on anything but grabbing as much power as they can as quickly as they can. as the charade becomes more transparent, the more disgusted and alienated the electorate becomes. a pathological aversion to self-reflection — since “conservatism never fails; you can only fail conservatism!” — keeps the party from even admitting, much less correcting, its mistakes and locked on course towards certain fracture. mccain lost to obama not because the gop thought an economic collapse would be a good time to hang it all on the janitor; they lost because mccain/palin was a genuinely horrifying ticket. this season’s gop primary has already shaped up into something even more horrid; to invoke paul krugman, their platform has devolved so far from not just what the majority wants but from reality that it can’t be peddled by anyone but liars, fools and clowns so pathetic they disgust even their own willing marks.
    and that’s why the gop will lose again in 2012. not because it’s part of their plan and not because they don’t want to, but because they can’t.

  348. avatar
    JPotter January 8, 2012 at 1:45 am #

    aarrgghh: to invoke paul krugman, their platform has devolved so far from not just what the majority wants but from reality that it can’t be peddled by anyone but liars, fools and clowns so pathetic they disgust even their own willing marks.

    Thanks for that link, aarrgghh! I ususally skip This Week (it’s a busy time slot (to me, at least!)). I also like the bit that Newt is: “a stupid man’s idea of what a smart man sounds like.” How so very succinct!

  349. avatar
    G January 8, 2012 at 1:56 am #

    Yeah, that line about Newt is definitely is one of the best and most memorable truism’s by Paul Krugman!

    I have heard more different people quote him on that statement over the past several weeks that I can recount!

    JPotter: Thanks for that link, aarrgghh! I ususally skip This Week (it’s a busy time slot (to me, at least!)). I also like the bit that Newt is: “a stupid man’s idea of what a smart man sounds like.” How so very succinct!

  350. avatar
    Keith January 8, 2012 at 2:18 am #

    aarrgghh: and that’s why the gop will lose again in 2012. not because it’s part of their plan and not because they don’t want to, but because they can’t.

    I understand your point. However, the opinion that they “can’t win in 2012” is a no-brainer, and though the GOP may be crazy, they aren’t necessary stupid. They know they can’t win with the talent they have either.

    It isn’t so much a question of ‘tanking’ as keeping their powder dry and working on grooming a candidate that can win in 2017. Sure they will try to be as competitive as they can in 2012, to ensure that the Dems can’t just walk through, but they know wasting political capital on a losing position just costs them in the long run.

    They are going to concentrate on maintaining control of the HoR and gaining in the Senate. And State legislatures control redistricting too. Like I said they are not stupid. If the Dems shoot their wad on a virtually unloseable Presidential campaign and take their eye off the ball at the Congressional and State races, they will be left with an impotent President that the GOP can blame for everything.

  351. avatar
    aarrgghh January 8, 2012 at 2:47 am #

    G:
    I agree with your points and what you said.I also think you said it very well.
    The only point of contention is I do think it is fair to say that many of those individuals in the GOP who were looked to to jump in this race (and chose not to) came to that personal decision in some part due to both feeling that a) Obama would be tough to beat and b) being President in 2013 would not be as “fun” as they would like, due to there being so many major problems that need fixing.So, in that particular sense, I do think the perceived GOP “heavy weights” intentionally took a pass on this cycle.But there is certainly no actual conspiracy in that calculus.

    if i believed that the gop were genuinely interested in fixing things i’d agree with you. nor do i believe that the economic forecast is what’s holding these so-called “heavyweights” back. the economy was worse in 2008 and if the gop have their way it won’t get any better for any gop candidate through a second obama turn. besides, in good times or bad, the prize is still trillions of dollars of taxpayer funds to wallow in.

    i would submit that presiding over hard times is not what’s cowed the “heavyweights”. i submit that it’s the race itself: now a grueling two-year marathon of criss-crossing the country, thrusting oneself into the faces of 300 million americans (and by extension, the rest of the world), in rowdy town halls and smoky back rooms, begging for money and endorsements, all under the blazing klieg lights of a voracious 24hr news beast starving for every tidbit it can find of your past, the more salacious the better. no other elected office has a campaign cycle so long. if you and your loved ones are not ready to go all the way, then passing up the opportunity is the wisest course to take.

  352. avatar
    aarrgghh January 8, 2012 at 2:47 am #

    G:
    Yeah, that line about Newt is definitely is one of the best and most memorable truism’s by Paul Krugman!

    I have heard more different people quote him on that statement over the past several weeks that I can recount!

    yes, that is a great zinger!

  353. avatar
    aarrgghh January 8, 2012 at 3:17 am #

    Keith: I understand your point. However, the opinion that they “can’t win in 2012‘ is a no-brainer, and though the GOP may be crazy, they aren’t necessary stupid. They know they can’t win with the talent they have either.

    It isn’t so much a question of tanking’ as keeping their powder dry and working on grooming a candidate that can win in 2017. Sure they will try to be as competitive as they can in 2012, to ensure that the Dems can’t just walk through, but they know wasting political capital on a losing position just costs them in the long run.

    They are going to concentrate on maintaining control of the HoR and gaining in the Senate. And State legislatures control redistricting too. Like I said they are not stupid. If the Dems shoot their wad on a virtually unloseable Presidential campaign and take their eye off the ball at the Congressional and State races, they will be left with an impotent President that the GOP can blame for everything.

    no, the gop aren’t necessarily stupid. but they are definitely ideologically blinkered, which narrows their view of the battlefield and keeps them so unjustifiably overconfident as to reject polls exposing their unpopularity. remember, karl rove had “the numbers”! so the gop’s still counting on dragging the economy down, throwing their weight behind mitt and inciting their base. meanwhile the dems can assess the battlefield just as clearly as the gop, so i don’t think the gop will catch them flatfooted. it all comes down to rumsfeld — it’s the army you have when the voting starts and there are no guarantees. of course, my not being privy to either party’s battle plans leaves me without any insight to how the gop’s really weighing their possible strategies, but i’m sure giving up on the white house is not one of them. that the gop can’t win may be a no-brainer, but i don’t think the gop actually believes that.

  354. avatar
    G January 8, 2012 at 3:28 am #

    Very valid points, thanks!

    aarrgghh: i would submit that presiding over hard times is not what’s cowed the “heavyweights”. i submit that it’s the race itself: now a grueling two-year marathon of criss-crossing the country, thrusting oneself into the faces of 300 million americans (and by extension, the rest of the world), in rowdy town halls and smoky back rooms, begging for money and endorsements, all under the blazing klieg lights of a voracious 24hr news beast starving for every tidbit it can find of your past, the more salacious the better. no other elected office has a campaign cycle so long. if you and your loved ones are not ready to go all the way, then passing up the opportunity is the wisest course to take.

  355. avatar
    JPotter January 8, 2012 at 4:18 am #

    Keith: They are going to concentrate on maintaining control of the HoR and gaining in the Senate.

    If that’s the goal, then they’re even sneaking than I thought! How has their use of their current level of control earned them a claim on a greater level of control?

    I know, I know, tying back to my statement about fundamentalist mindsets (those that inflexibly put arbitrary “principles” ΓΌber alles), I am aware that this obstructionism has great appeal. A portion of the Red base would be happy to see their champions pull down the pillars if that’s what it takes to avoid sane, efficient government. Or is fiddling while the country burns a more apt analogy?

  356. avatar
    joyeagle January 8, 2012 at 10:50 pm #

    Doc C.

    No problem. I avoided discussion on theology as several posters tried to go there … and I don’t believe to engage on that would be profitable for anyone or this site. However, the issue that I was confronting concerning the 2012 election was the suggestion that social conservative republican’s are promoting theocracy and are equivalent to the Taliban. I suggested that is fear-based hyperbole, nearly on the level of birther claims. It was a political argument on the role of morality/religion in public servants. But thanks for your allowance … I respect that.

    John C. Drew, Ph.D.:
    – joyeagle

    I thought I’d wander over here and give you some support.As a political scientist who has taught American government and published on child welfare and protective programs, I can assure people that you are 100% correct in saying that the U.S. Constitution was founded on Judeo-Christian ideas.The original colonies, in fact, were based on different branches of Christianity.

    The suggestion that the U.S. Constitution does not have its roots in Christianity is absolutely absurd.

    FYI:In my experience, these threads often work out better if at least two libertarians or conservatives are posting at the same time.Many of the same things liberals are saying about you are being said about me in other areas of this website.

    [Normally I don’t allow discussions about religion because they are off topic for this blog, and they typically spiral out of control. I’m going to permit this comment (which I don’t agree with), and ask that nothing else be said on this topic. Doc.]

  357. avatar
    JPotter January 9, 2012 at 12:08 am #

    Mad Magazine goes birther!

    The cover features baby Obama afloat in the ocean(?). Are those international waters? What me worry, eh?

    Open to the centerfold for an awesome spread of Birther Trump in all his glory! Only #15 top 20 dumbest item of the year. Well, it is old news now.

    This issue has been out awhile, but I just bought it today, I’m lame like that. Thanks to Doug Gilford’s site for cover scan and southern4life blog for centerfold scan.

  358. avatar
    G January 9, 2012 at 2:11 am #

    Actually, the first thing that came to mind when I saw that cover image was Nirvana’s “Nevermind” album…

    Sure enough, when I pulled out my CD to compare, it was an unmistakable clear homage to that.

    See:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind

    JPotter: The cover features baby Obama afloat in the ocean(?). Are those international waters? What me worry, eh?

  359. avatar
    Lupin January 9, 2012 at 3:10 am #

    joyeagle: Judeo-Christian ethics, morals and ideas is exactly what the constitution was formed on and adheres to. It’s really not that difficult.

    Even if that were true (which it isn’t), the problem is that YOU don’t follow these ethics.

    Were the Holy Inquisition still around, you’d likely be burned at the stake as a heretic.

    I’ve already demonstrated elsewhere how you deviate from Church Doctrine as laid out by St Augustine and other luminaries.

    The only thing left for you to do is confess your heresies, repent — and crackle, crackle.

    So, yes, it is that difficult.

  360. avatar
    J. Potter January 9, 2012 at 9:38 am #

    G: Actually, the first thing that came to mind when I saw that cover image was Nirvana’s “Nevermind” album…Sure enough, when I pulled out my CD to compare, it was an unmistakable clear homage to that.

    Yes, G, I got that was playing dumb to get some mileage out of it πŸ˜‰ MAD would never go birther.

    Even if dropped in int’l waters, baby Obama would still be a NBC, thanks to mum’s citizenship …. right?

    If he were born in the ocean, we’d never hear the end of Revelations 13:

    1. And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea…

    It’s a classic …. to cherrypick out of context in the classic mode of prophecy interpretation I grew up with, the beast from the ocean is given power to reign for 42 months … clear indication Obama will be impeached this summer.

    But birthers, be careful what you wish for! … scripture indicates he’ll be replaced by an even worse beast, with a worldwide cult following and wide ranging economic powers, requiring the Mark of the Beast to buy, sell, or trade. Sounds like the Fed to me, hardehar.

  361. avatar
    Majority Will January 9, 2012 at 12:53 pm #

    “Kansas Republican Prays For Death Of President Obama; Follows Up With Racial Slur Against First Lady. Apologizes (Poorly) When Caught”

    (excerpt) Kansas continues to beg the question: “What’s the matter with Kansas?” Late last week, Kansas Speaker of the House, Mike O’Neal, “apologized” for forwarding a pair of emails that, in turn, called for the death of President Obama and then referred to the First Lady as “YoMoma.”

    The first email makes a reference to Psalm 109:8 and part of it reads:

    “At last — I can honestly voice a Biblical prayer for our president! Look it up — it is word for word! Let us all bow our heads and pray. Brothers and Sisters, can I get an AMEN? AMEN!!!!!!”

    (source: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/08/kansas-republican-prays-for-death-of-president-obama-follows-up-with-racial-slur-against-first-lady-apologizes-poorly-when-caught-image/)

    More classiness from the fright wing fringe’s bigotry brigade.

  362. avatar
    G January 9, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

    UGH! Having a position of authority at any level in government is supposed to come with some expectations of professional social behavior. Cretins like this Mike O’Neal clown severely debase their office and have no business in any position of power as they clearly cannot handle the threshold of social responsibility that goes with such office.

    Any a-hole who tries to be cheeky and use that particular religious quote deserves to be treated the same as everyone else who threatens assassination. The full context of the intent of that particular biblical passage has only one meaning – it is a clear prayer for someone’s death.

    The only way to restore civility in our society is if we enforce stricter follow-up and penalties for out-of-bounds rephrehensible behavior. Shameless people will just keep pushing the envelope and encouraging further debased behavior until they have to face consequences for “going there”.

    Majority Will:
    “Kansas Republican Prays For Death Of President Obama; Follows Up With Racial Slur Against First Lady. Apologizes (Poorly) When Caught”

    (excerpt) Kansas continues to beg the question: “What’s the matter with Kansas?” Late last week, Kansas Speaker of the House, Mike O’Neal, “apologized” for forwarding a pair of emails that, in turn, called for the death of President Obama and then referred to the First Lady as “YoMoma.”

    The first email makes a reference to Psalm 109:8 and part of it reads:

    “At last — I can honestly voice a Biblical prayer for our president! Look it up — it is word for word! Let us all bow our heads and pray. Brothers and Sisters, can I get an AMEN? AMEN!!!!!!”

    (source: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/08/kansas-republican-prays-for-death-of-president-obama-follows-up-with-racial-slur-against-first-lady-apologizes-poorly-when-caught-image/)

    More classiness from the fright wing fringe’s bigotry brigade.

  363. avatar
    Majority Will January 9, 2012 at 4:15 pm #

    G:
    UGH!Having a position of authority at any level in government is supposed to come with some expectations of professional social behavior.Cretins like this Mike O’Neal clown severely debase their office and have no business in any position of power as they clearly cannot handle the threshold of social responsibility that goes with such office.

    Any a-hole who tries to be cheeky and use that particular religious quote deserves to be treated the same as everyone else who threatens assassination.The full context of the intent of that particular biblical passage has only one meaning – it is a clear prayer for someone’s death.

    The only way to restore civility in our society is if we enforce stricter follow-up and penalties for out-of-bounds rephrehensible behavior.Shameless people will just keep pushing the envelope and encouraging further debased behavior until they have to face consequences for “going there”.

    Agreed.

  364. avatar
    James M January 9, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    Majority Will:

    The first email makes a reference to Psalm 109:8 and part of it reads:

    “At last — I can honestly voice a Biblical prayer for our president! Look it up — it is word for word! Let us all bow our heads and pray. Brothers and Sisters, can I get an AMEN? AMEN!!!!!!”

    If this can be interpreted as a credible death threat, it’s a crime with no statute of limitations, which means that even decades after President Obama is out of office, he could still be on the hook for making the threat.

  365. avatar
    Majority Will January 9, 2012 at 4:49 pm #

    James M: If this can be interpreted as a credible death threat, it’s a crime with no statute of limitations, which means that even decades after President Obama is out of office, he could still be on the hook for making the threat.

    Or as an accessory by inciting a lone wolf.

  366. avatar
    J. Potter January 9, 2012 at 5:03 pm #

    Could be construed as imaginative incitement, should member(s) of his flock be inspired to action.

    James M: If this can be interpreted as a credible death threat,

  367. avatar
    J. Potter January 9, 2012 at 5:13 pm #

    Orly composed a ballot challenge for the state of Mississippi, she posted it yesterday. Quite a rambling attempt at a kitchen sink approach. Several pages of birther SSN theory, her favorite.

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/MS-ballot-challenge-ORLY-TAITZ1.pdf

    Supposedly submitted on a Sunday(?), via fax and certified mail. Will anyone notice?

    Still waiting on the FBI to react to their birther mail.

  368. avatar
    G January 9, 2012 at 7:50 pm #

    BINGO.

    Majority Will: Or as an accessory by inciting a lone wolf.

  369. avatar
    joyeagle January 10, 2012 at 7:56 pm #

    J Potter,

    Why did Romney get 18 and Santorum only 8? Not exactly proportional?

    J. Potter: 18

  370. avatar
    DG January 10, 2012 at 8:02 pm #

    I know I’ve read articles (comments?) here that discuss the Barry Soetoro/adopted by Lolo issue but I’m having a hard time finding what I’m looking for now. Someone sent me the link to HIllbuzz’s claim about Soetoro being Obama’s real name and wanted to know of information to disprove it (my friend is NOT a birther, she just wasn’t sure what info disproved it). Besides the obvious lack of any concrete evidence PROVING Obama was adopted, can anyone point me to the direction of an article (here or elsewhere) or just give me a basic run-down on this topic.

    I’m a new poster here but a long-time lurker. This is definitely NOT any attempt at baiting. I swear on my sons’ Hawaiian BCs that look just like Obama’s! πŸ˜‰

  371. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 8:03 pm #

    Hi Joyeagle, help me out here with more context from the original post you cited of Mr. Potter. The single number of “8” isn’t enough to go buy or indicate the context at all of what is being discussed. In trying to search through this lengthy and cluttered thread, I simply couldn’t find the original reference either.

    So, I’m not sure what is being discussed or debated at all.

    In interesting Rick Santorum news, it is quite possible that Santorum actually “won” the Iowa Caucus and that there was a 20-vote miscalculation applied to Romney in one of the precincts (reporting a 2 as 22 by mistake). Just an interesting tidbit and development, that’s all. I don’t see it really having much impact in the overall dynamics in play, regardless.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Republican_caucuses,_2012#Allegations_of_irregularities_and_results_certification

    joyeagle:
    J Potter,

    Why did Romney get 18 and Santorum only 8?Not exactly proportional?

  372. avatar
    joyeagle January 10, 2012 at 8:08 pm #

    G,

    This was the post I was referencing … sorry … since the search highlighted 18, that is all it showed in the blockquote.

    J. Potter: G, First, thanks, happy you were able to find it amidst the eruption of concern here! This Open Thread could be called the Hot and Heavy edition

    Thanks also for the additional insight, we do have different reads on the chances of a far right candidate winning out!

    No need to go over the conservative rural v progressive urban split, not much new there, and I have lived it everyday, firsthand, intensely, since high school. My main point was how clear the trend, which has been so notable between the 2 parties, was inside of a single party’s results. And how it may continue to play out.

    In Iowa, a rural state, the two sides balanced. Even lumping the 6 main candidates together amongst the extremes, they balance. I don’t agree that Gingrich’s supporters will go to the Deep Reds. To me, I believe Romney-Gingrich-Huntsman supporters would align against Santorum-Perry-Bachman supporters, giving a vote total in Iowa of 48,700 Deep Red v. 47,000 Red. The pattern may well continue in other rural states. In sparsely populated states, I think Paul will do well, may even win a few over the Deep Red favorite.

    However, the delegate gold mines are the populous states, which have more and larger urban areas. In these states, as in the 2008 general, the conservatives will win the countryside, perhaps 90% of the geography, but lose the state, as all the “good parts” favor the more moderate candidate.

    Worse, the Deep Red sentiment has been fickle. Perhaps they have finally found their champion. If not, and their preference varies from state to state, Romney and Paul, with their organizational and fiscal advantages, will continue to pick up a steady number of delegates in contest after contest, with others picking up some here, some there. Old reliable will win this race….10 delegates from every state beats 20 from 20 states. If Santorum has indeed grasped the Deep Red standard, we may have a horse race here. For awhile, in the rural states anyway.

    Finally, as previously expected/explained in my Red anti-Paul conspiracy theory, at-large delegates are going to drift to Romney. So far that’s holding true. Romney has supposedly pocketed, overall, 18 delegates vs 8 for Santorum and 7 for Paul.

    Age and Money are (in more ways than one!) on Romney’s side. When Santorum says elections are no longer about money, he’s dreaming.

    PS–to steal a wit from Borowitz, last night’s results set a new record for fewest people deciding a US election, 8 people. That’s one less since the previous record, set in 2000, of 9.

  373. avatar
    joyeagle January 10, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

    Yeh, that is also why I was wondering. If Santorum actually won with those contested 20 votes, would that change the count for 18/8 between the two? I haven’t heard any news on the descrepancy in the last two days.

    Paul continues to beat expectations. I was saddened to hear he didn’t believe he had enough money to compete (run ads) in Florida, and may not be “worth” it with the half delegate count.

    G:
    Hi Joyeagle,help me out here with more context from the original post you cited of Mr. Potter.The single number of “8‘ isn’t enough to go buy or indicate the context at all of what is being discussed.In trying to search through this lengthy and cluttered thread, I simply couldn’t find the original reference either.

    So, I’m not sure what is being discussed or debated at all.

    In interesting Rick Santorum news, it is quite possible that Santorum actually “won” the Iowa Caucus and that there was a 20-vote miscalculation applied to Romney in one of the precincts (reporting a 2 as 22 by mistake).Just an interesting tidbit and development, that’s all.I don’t see it really having much impact in the overall dynamics in play, regardless.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Republican_caucuses,_2012#Allegations_of_irregularities_and_results_certification

  374. avatar
    J. Potter January 10, 2012 at 8:15 pm #

    joyeagle: J Potter,Why did Romney get 18 and Santorum only 8? Not exactly proportional?

    Joyeagle,

    This was my source:
    http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/scorecard/statebystate/r?hpt=hp_pc1

    The primary caucus system isn’t as simple as voters vote and the states delegates are divided proportionally. Depending on the party’s rules, governors, senators, representatives, maybe some others, have delegates they may pledge as they see fit. Romeny has collected more of these than others (so far). In some states, the delegates aren’t strictly bound to the results of the primary/caucus*. Some states are winner take all. If you’d like to dig into the gory, state-by-state details, see:
    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/

    In short, it’s a mess! Thankfully, the CNN page compiles what is known/projected, from all the various sources of delegates, to date.

  375. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 10, 2012 at 8:16 pm #

    Site traffic is up noticeably in January over December.

  376. avatar
    J. Potter January 10, 2012 at 8:17 pm #

    joyeagle: If Santorum actually won with those contested 20 votes, would that change the count for 18/8 between the two?

    Joyeagle, such a small difference (shouldn’t) make a difference …. to my knowledge, there isn’t a bonus for “winning” … but you’d have to refer to the Iowa RP caucus rules to be sure!

  377. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 8:25 pm #

    DG,

    Well, for starters, I suggest you simply try starting with the Debunker’s Guide and look through the topics that might have an article that covers some of what you are looking for.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/

    I wish I could be more helpful off the top of my head, but it pretty much comes down to this:

    Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

    Therefore, you need to not go down the path of disproving an allegation for which there is no supporting evidence in the first place. It is like someone asking you to “when did you stop beating your wife?”. It is simply a false argument on its face.

    Simply put, there is absolutely NO evidence that has ever turned up that Obama was ever adopted by Lolo Soetoro.

    The closest thing there is is the Indonesian school paper, where someone wrote Obama’s name down as “Obama Barry Soetoro” on the form. That is simply the only evidence out there of him ever being listed or referred to by that name. (Note: the same document that clearly also states his place of birth in Honolulu, HI…but Birthers “discount” that yet focus on the name issue.

    Regardless, that one form is simply not proof of anything, nor of adoption.

    In ALL other documentation that has turned up (which you can search for articles on them here) that have turned up in FOIA request, there is NOTHING that suggests that his name was officially anything other than his birth name of “Barack Hussein Obama II”, nor that any adoption ever took place. Not birth records. Not Marriage Records. Not Divorce Records. Not passport records from his mother or step-father. Nada. Zip.

    He was born Obama. When he returned to live with his grandparents in HI as a young child, all references from his childhood schooling here at ALL levels of education consistently only indicate the last name of Obama for him. Period.

    Not that such an adoption could take away his NBC US citizenship status in the first place.

    But the important and KEY part to emphasize here is there is NO evidence AT ALL that he was ever adopted and had to officially change his last name – NADA.

    The Birthers have been pursuing that dead end myth for well over 3 years. No evidence of any adoption records have turned up. Had there been any official adoption, such records would not be hard to uncover or dig up.

    So it simply comes down to this – there is no credible reason to take such myths seriously.

    Anytime someone hits you up with that nonsense, which is utterly contrary to the official story and all evidence out there, simply PUSH BACK on the person spouting such nonsense and don’t waver from insisting that THEY prove and provide evidence that he was adopted.

    Here is a simple maxim for you to remember and use on them:

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    Until they can provide that extraordinary evidence, they don’t have an argument to make at all. Simple as that, really.

    DG:
    I know I’ve read articles (comments?) here that discuss the Barry Soetoro/adopted by Lolo issue but I’m having a hard time finding what I’m looking for now.Someone sent me the link to HIllbuzz’s claim about Soetoro being Obama’s real name and wanted to know of information to disprove it (my friend is NOT a birther, she just wasn’t sure what info disproved it). Besides the obvious lack of any concrete evidence PROVING Obama was adopted, can anyone point me to the direction of an article (here or elsewhere) or just give me a basic run-down on this topic.

    I’m a new poster here but a long-time lurker.This is definitely NOT any attempt at baiting.I swear on my sons’ Hawaiian BCs that look just like Obama’s!

  378. avatar
    joyeagle January 10, 2012 at 8:26 pm #

    J Potter,
    Thanks for the info and sources for both questions. I also find it curious NH only has 12 delegates in a larger (population) state. It must have been penalized for going pre-Feb also? Yep … I used your second source, and that is exactly what happened–50% penalty in NH. OK. Interesting.

    G,
    I see Ron Paul picking up steam tonight. Your thoughts?

    J. Potter: Joyeagle, such a small difference (shouldn’t) make a difference …. to my knowledge, there isn’t a bonus for “winning” … but you’d have to refer to the Iowa RP caucus rules to be sure!

  379. avatar
    DG January 10, 2012 at 8:46 pm #

    Thanks, G. I’ve gone through the debunker’s guide several times but I’m not finding what I (think) remember reading. I’m guessing it was in an open thread comments.

    I’ve passed that link along, I was just hoping for something more concrete.

  380. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 8:54 pm #

    JPotter & Joyeagle – I’m going to restate the relevant portions of my response from 1/4/12 10:05 pm above, which addresses how the delegate allocation works in IA, as I think it got lost admist the volume here:

    In terms of the IA caucus being non-binding, yes, but the actual formulas of delegate allocation do have certain rules to them. Even in 2008, Paul who captured only 1 county and only got 9.93% of the vote still got 2 delegates out of the final IA calculus. Therefore, I suspect that all 3 of the top performers this year will each end up with a healthy apportionment of IA’s available delegates. Remember, Paul captured 17 counties this year – same as Romney. Perry actually got 2 and the other 63 went to Santorum.

    Therefore, it is even possible that a small number of the delegates get awarded to Perry and even Newt as well.

    There was originally supposed to be 41 delegates for IA, but there is still an open debate on how a penalty might be applied by the RNC to even them for moving up their contest to Jan 3rd. I’ve heard some differing numbers that the final IA total might be only 31 or 25 delegates…as the *possible* penalty isn’t a clear “slash in half” as sometimes is reported and could only affect a certain category of delegates.

    http://www.iowacaucus.biz/IA_Caucus_Howitworks.html

    Next, the Republican party will begin the process of selecting the 41 delegates that will represent the state of Iowa.

    Step 5 – After the caucuses in each county, a County Convention will be held to select the delegates for the District Convention, using the influence of the straw poll as a guide.

    Step 6 – After the County Convention, a District Convention will be held in which all of the counties in that political district will decide on just 3 delegates to represent each district. There are 6 districts in Iowa for a total of 18 delegates.

    Step 7 – The State of Iowa Republican Convention will decide upon a total of 23 more delegates, along with the 3 additional delegates per district, for a sum total of 41 delegates who will represent the candidates in the National Convention, at which the official Presidential Candidate for the Republican party will be decided.

    So yeah, we probably won’t see these totals get added to the run count until the end of the process, but they definitely will come into play.

    So, numbers by CNN & AP and other guesses on those allocations are completely meaningless at this point and there will be NO official allocations until the actual final IA delegates allot them at the GOP Convention at the very end of the contest.

    It is almost certain that Romney, Santorum and Paul end up each with a healthy apportionment of those delegates. As mentioned, even Newt or Perry might still end up with a few.

    See also:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Republican_caucuses,_2012#Result
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Republican_caucuses,_2012#Selection_of_delegates

    From this, there is a strong indication that the “penalty loss” of delegate representation seems to be settling on 25 being the final conventional wisdom available tally for IA

    (Note: Even that number is a matter of unsettled debate by the GOP rules committee that will only be finalized at the end of the process, when they make an official decision on how each of the penalties is applied to this cycle).

    But let’s go with 25 as the result. If you see from the links I cited below, there is a wide amount of pure guessing out there – look at the different allocation models by AP, CNN and MSNBC. Of those, CNN’s 7-7-7-2-2 model seems to make the most sense, based on prior history of how those things turn out.

    Further, the AP and others seem to have not paid attention to the all important dynamic of WHO actually becomes physical delegates in each of these next steps towards final delegate voting.

    Note this article – which shows that Paul’s campaign might have been the smartest in thinking this process through in IA:

    Business Insider notes that although Ron Paul finished third in the Iowa caucuses, he may end up being a winner anyway.

    “That’s because Paul’s massive organizational push in Iowa focused on both winning votes, and also on making sure that Paul supporters stuck around after the vote to make sure they were selected as county delegates — the first step towards being elected as a delegate to the Republican National Convention.”

    Iowa’s Republican caucuses are non-binding, so once delegates are selected they are free to vote for whichever presidential candidate they choose.

    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/01/04/pauls_secret_victory_in_iowa.html

    J. Potter: Joyeagle,

    This was my source:
    http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/scorecard/statebystate/r?hpt=hp_pc1

    The primary caucus system isn’t as simple as voters vote and the states delegates are divided proportionally. Depending on the party’s rules, governors, senators, representatives, maybe some others, have delegates they may pledge as they see fit. Romeny has collected more of these than others (so far). In some states, the delegates aren’t strictly bound to the results of the primary/caucus*. Some states are winner take all. If you’d like to dig into the gory, state-by-state details, see:
    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/

    In short, it’s a mess! Thankfully, the CNN page compiles what is known/projected, from all the various sources of delegates, to date.

  381. avatar
    joyeagle January 10, 2012 at 9:01 pm #

    OK. Very helpful. Thanks for going over that again. I did know about the Ron Paul “stay late” technique, but didn’t quite understand the impact.
    I appreciate the rundown. Very interesting. Very complicated.

    G: I’m going to restate the relevant portions of my response from 1/4/12 10:05 pm above, which addresses how the delegate allocation works in IA, as I think it got lost admist the volume here:

  382. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 9:02 pm #

    If you can be more specific about exactly what you might be looking for, both Dr. C and the other readers here can probably have a better idea of where to direct you for that specific source or answer.

    The original topic and question you stated is so general that it is hard to go from, honestly. It pretty much comes down to the fact that all of the claims of his name being something else all are just anecdotal sub-set arguments of some bigger and more primary Birther myth at play.

    Also, with there being NO evidence of any adoption, it is sort of hard to have articles on a topic with no indication that it ever occurred in the first place.

    As I said – stop the myth tellers cold by not playing defense on their terms. Make THEM prove and support a solid basis for their claims. It cannot be said enough:

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    Stick that to them and make them meet that standard before engaging in dialogue. All they are trying to do is pull you into being distracted and get wrapped up in an endless nonsense side-tangent of purely hypothetical “what if” conjecture that has no connection to reality and is utterly irrelevant in the first place. It is simply a diversionary tactic on their part to confuse and sow doubt where there is none.

    DG:
    Thanks, G.I’ve gone through the debunker’s guide several times but I’m not finding what I (think) remember reading.I’m guessing it was in an open thread comments.

    I’ve passed that link along, I was just hoping for something more concrete.

  383. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 10, 2012 at 9:10 pm #

    The only evidence that Obama was adopted is that he went by the name “Barry Soetoro” on an Indonesian school registration form when he was 6. The original Fox News report that featured the school registration also said that school officials said it was common to put the father’s last name and religion on the school forms.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/indonesian-school-explains-obamas-registration/

    Looking at State Department documents (FOIA), it is almost certain that Obama had not been adopted as of October 1967 (he was still in the US) and the school form was dated January 1, 1968. Obama at the most was only in Indonesia 2 months before the school form was filled out stretching the plausibility of an adoption.

    Birther arguments about national identity cards (trying to make the name “official”) are bogus. Those identity cards aren’t issued until a person reaches 17. Birther arguments that only Indonesian citizens could attend school are equally fatuous. See:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/hollister-v-indonesian-citizenship-law/

    Interestingly, one direct piece of evidence that Obama was never adopted by Lolo Soetoro comes from the US State Department response to Mr. Strunk’s lawsuit, in which the Department of State denies that Obama was ever adopted by Soetoro and denies that he was ever an Indonesian citizen.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/department-of-state-denies-birther-allegations/

    DG: Besides the obvious lack of any concrete evidence PROVING Obama was adopted, can anyone point me to the direction of an article (here or elsewhere) or just give me a basic run-down on this topic.

  384. avatar
    Hermano Gonzales, Esq. January 10, 2012 at 9:41 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The only evidence that Obama was adopted is that he went by the name “Barry Soetoro” on an Indonesian school registration form when he was 6. The original Fox News report that featured the school registration also said that school officials said it was common to put the father’s last name and religion on the school forms.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/indonesian-school-explains-obamas-registration/

    Looking at State Department documents (FOIA), it is almost certain that Obama had not been adopted as of October 1967 (he was still in the US) and the school form was dated January 1, 1968. Obama at the most was only in Indonesia 2 months before the school form was filled out stretching the plausibility of an adoption.

    Birther arguments about national identity cards (trying to make the name “official”) are bogus. Those identity cards aren’t issued until a person reaches 17. Birther arguments that only Indonesian citizens could attend school are equally fatuous. See:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/hollister-v-indonesian-citizenship-law/

    Interestingly, one direct piece of evidence that Obama was never adopted by Lolo Soetoro comes from the US State Department response to Mr. Strunk’s lawsuit, in which the Department of State denies that Obama was ever adopted by Soetoro and denies that he was ever an Indonesian citizen.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/department-of-state-denies-birther-allegations/

    If your original birth record is sealed and archived away from where other birth records are stored, then you might be adopted.

    If your original birth record has a “date accepted” and your COLB has a “date filed”, then you might have a court order to change your birth record on file due to an adoption annulment.

    If your mom’s first divorce record has a copy of your original birth record removed from the file, then you might be adopted and the Court ordered the document removed from the divorce file, sealed and archived.

    If your private catholic school in Jarkarta, Indonesia where you lived nearly 45 years ago can produce a record with the name Barry Soetoro, born in Honolulu, HI, then that might be your adopted name at that time.

    If Barry Soetoro’s COLB is sealed and archived in the State of Hawaii, then your adoption may have been annulled.

    And finally, if you have never lived in Connecticut and you have a Connecticut based SSN, then US Federal Government took you into custody when you returned to the US from Indonesia as an unaccompanied minor.

  385. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 9:53 pm #

    Hi Joyeagle,

    I was holding off to see his speech before offering an initial assessment.

    I have to totally agreee with you that he’s picking up steam. Even with the votes still coming in and only 46% to go on, he’s got 24% of the total at the moment – if that holds – WOW!

    Simply put, that is truly exceeding expectations for NH, especially compared to all the trend lines. There was little doubt that Romney was going to run away with NH. The true story of the night was where the other major players would come in.

    So far, Santorum & Newt each around 10% is exceeding expectations for them too and bodes well for their momentum into IA. The big story thoughout the weekend and up to this moment was Huntsman. The trendlines were there indicating major momentum for him and most of the prognositicators were focused on him coming in second and (as usual) utterly discounting Paul.

    So far, 17% is still a solid effort for Huntsman, but it indicates that the “undecideds” and “Indy” vote clearly went for Paul. Paul getting anywhere over 20% in NH is just amazingly *huge* and clearly exceeding expectations.

    Paul’s speech was also quite impressive tonight – very positive and strong. One of his most forceful presentations. I noticed that all 3 of the big cable channels covered it in full and CNN is even doing live “trend lines” of undecided SC voters reacting to the speeches – I was really impressed with how high the trendlines stayed for the majority of Pauls’ speech! Normally, a long speech can cause attention drift and lose an impatient audience…but Paul seemed to really pull off holding attention and making a strong case. With that long of airtime on all channels, that is one heck of a powerful free infomercial for Paul’s cause that he just pulled off. πŸ™‚

    So, I see Paul’s performance as a huge win in all respects tonight – exceeding most expectations and definitely a continuing upward trend in energy and momentum. He’s clearly got a real case that can be made and there is no doubt he is a bigger factor than the media would like to acknowledge. He is clearly going to continue to be a strong factor for quite some time.

    Update – My wife pulled me away to hear Huntsman’s speech before she went to bed, so just getting back here. His speech was quite upbeat too. I had always said that 15% was the bar he needed to clear to go onward and with 17% holding so far, he’s clearly decided to do so. He said he’s continuing on to fight in SC, but FL and NV are really where Huntsman’s next true tests are. Therefore, I don’t think he will drop out, regardless of SC performance and will stay to contest at least FL no matter what.

    Paul is clearly well-positioned for the long haul. I see the exit polling stats show that Paul solidly won the Indy vote demographics – an important key dynamic for anyone with serious eyes on wanting to prove they can do well in a General Election contest.

    So yes, I think Paul is continuing to improve and make his own solid “viability” argument – one which the GOP Establishment and the media are desperate not to hear. Paul does represent a revolution that changes the dynamics…and that simply scares the Establishment more than anything.

    I’ll have more to comment and compare after the final numbers come in, but in summary, I completely agree Joyeagle that Paul is gaining momentum and this was a stellar night for him.

    joyeagle: G,
    I see Ron Paul picking up steam tonight. Your thoughts?

  386. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 9:58 pm #

    Doesn’t seem to be any bonus in “winning” in that particular state. Each state’s allocation rules are different.

    IA seems to all come down to who is elected as the final physical delegates to the GOP Convention and how they choose to vote… so it really comes down to a campaign in IA being able to get its sown upporters elected as delegates every step along the way… quite a weird system indeed.

    From the reporting, it sounds like Paul smartly positioned his people to try to take advantage of the initial people picked as delegates to the next step…so I’ll try to keep an “ear” out on news of those different steps playing out and if his “advocates” continue to win “voting” positions going into the final and real allocation at the end…

    J. Potter: Joyeagle, such a small difference (shouldn’t) make a difference …. to my knowledge, there isn’t a bonus for “winning” … but you’d have to refer to the Iowa RP caucus rules to be sure!

  387. avatar
    Keith January 10, 2012 at 10:36 pm #

    Brother Gonzo:

    That’s a lot of “if”s. None of which are true, of course.

    Hermano Gonzales, Esq.:
    If…
    If…
    If…
    If…
    If…
    And finally, if…

    The original birth record is not “sealed”, it is private. There is a difference.

    The original birth record may well have had both a “date filed” and “date accepted” for the purposes of manual administrative purposes. Since computerized procedures conflate those dates to the same instant there is no reason to record them separately. What heading to place next to the data item on the printed page is arbitrary and meaningless as long as it describes that data item as the date on which the State officially took responsibility for the safe keeping of that birth event data.

    There is no evidence that the divorce records file ever contained a copy of anyone’s birth certificate? Why would it? Even if it was there, how would you know if it was missing if the file is sealed?

    Since Indonesian law forbids ‘western’ style adoption for children over the age of 5 and Obama was 6 at the time the name on the school records could not be an adopted name, because no adoption was possible. Furthermore, even if an adoption did occur, since Muslim custom forbids dishonoring the actual father of a child by changing the child’s name in that way, it could not be a name change required by adoption. The name on the schools records is more easily explained as a clerical ‘simplification’ of the same nature as the idiot officials that keep listing my first name as ‘Keith’ when it is my middle name.

    There is no COLB in Hawai’i for a person named Barry Soetoro, sealed or unsealed. It does not appear in the Index. In general Birth Certificates are not sealed, they are private, there is a difference.

    And finally, SSN’s are not ‘State Based’, the prefix number is or was ‘Zip Code’ based. A typographic error made when reading a handwritten zip code is all it would take for a person living in Hawai’i to get a SSN with a prefix indicating an application from an address with a Connecticut zip code.

  388. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 10:55 pm #

    The “loss of half” penalty seems to apply to ALL states that went prior to March…and possibly even everything prior to “Super Tuesday” on March 6th.

    Therefore, this is an extremely back-loaded calendar, like we’ve never seen before.

    Yes, NH will only get 12 instead of the 23 original delegates. SC was originally 47, so I’m assuming that is now only 24. Interestingly, SC is still worth double as a prize over NH and the end-of-the-game allocation from IA still is the biggest so far (25). However, I caution paying attention to any organization that projects IA numbers into the delegate race totals at this stage of the game… I’d rather stick with actual count numbers instead of the pure guesswork of how that final allocation will be.

    FL is one of the largest states – it had 93 delegates at stake…so being cut in half there is a huge blow for that state, taking them down to probably 47. Still, that is more than SC and NH combined.

    There is some legitmate question as to whether the Feb states might persuade a “pass” on the half-allocation penalty, but I suspect it will hold. For now, I’ll list their delegate potentials as a full / half number, just to be fair. As I mentioned, the final ruling on delegate penalties might be different when we get to the end of the race and each of the states impacted tries to plead their case for reassessment.

    Feb 4 – Nevada (caucus) – 25 / 13
    Feb 4-11 – Maine (caucus) – 24 /12
    Feb 7 – Colorado (caucus) – 36 / 18
    Feb 7 – Minnesota (caucus) 40 / 20
    Feb 7 – Missouri (primary) – Zero (beauty contest only, delegate allocating caucus 3/17)
    Feb 28 – Arizona (primary) – 54 / 27
    Feb 28 – Michigan (primary) – 62 / 31
    Mar 3 – Washington (caucus) – 40 / 20

    That is the rest of what goes down prior to “Super Tuesday” on Mar 6.

    It should be noted that the media and the overall race are mostly going to be focused on SC and FL until those finish and then is likely to place most of its attention on NV. Same with most of the candidates, with one exception – Ron Paul. His organization on the ground is already *very* active at a surprising level in all those states and he even did suprisingly well in many of them (way above his average), back in 2008. His campaign seems really focused on a solid, under-the-radar laser focus of building delegates…so I still think the media and establishment are only discounting him at their own peril.

    Ron Paul will likely remain competitive enough to grab some delegates out of all of those contests and even has a very good chance of being able to lock down a win in most of those caucus contests, especially while all the other campaigns are distracted and not really focused on them. By the time any of the others, even Romeny, turns their attention to them, it could simply be too late for them to stop Paul in those states. That is particulary true in a caucus dynamic that is much more a factor of getting your people to show up and caucus than simply a voting primary.

    joyeagle:
    J Potter,
    Thanks for the info and sources for both questions.I also find it curious NH only has 12 delegates in a larger (population) state.It must have been penalized for going pre-Feb also?Yep … I used your second source, and that is exactly what happened–50% penalty in NH.OK.Interesting.

  389. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 11:02 pm #

    All a bunch of unfounded nonsense.

    Simply a Concern Trolling attempt to sow doubt where there is none and based on nothing at all.

    See Dr. C’s commentary on this topic above. These issues have pretty much been covered.

    All your speculative BS has long been debunked and doesn’t hold water. Sorry.

    Hermano Gonzales, Esq.: If …, then you might be adopted.

  390. avatar
    joyeagle January 10, 2012 at 11:07 pm #

    Great analysis. I agree with all. I also thought tonight was Paul’s best performance in speaking. I heard someone on the radio talking about a “Chris Christie” VP for Romney, and they cautioned he wasn’t as conservative as the conventional wisdom says, but that he is popular because he speaks what he means not what you want to hear. And the commentator went on to say that is what so many people like about Ron Paul. I was mentioning the same thing the last several days … like refreshing … he doesn’t say what he thinks he should, what you need to hear, but what he truly thinks. Was a big part of the Cain appeal too. People are tired of the practiced politician with no conviction about anything but getting elected.
    I (as a Paul supporter) am glad Huntsman is staying in. I do believe he will Siphon Romney support. I also believe that Gingrich and Perry using liberal, anti-capitalist arguments against Romney will only help Paul and Santorum, and seal the death certificate to their failed campaigns.
    I predict tickets out of SC are Romney, Huntsman, Paul, Santorum, and a weak Gingrich. And then out of Florida Romney, Santorum and Paul.

    G: I was holding off to see his speech before offering an initial assessment.

  391. avatar
    Joey January 10, 2012 at 11:50 pm #

    Hermano Gonzales, Esq.: If your original birth record is sealed and archived away from where other birth records are stored, then you might be adopted.

    If your original birth record has a “date accepted” and your COLB has a “date filed”, then you might have a court order to change your birth record on file due to an adoption annulment.

    If your mom’s first divorce record has a copy of your original birth record removed from the file, then you might be adopted and the Court ordered the document removed from the divorce file, sealed and archived.

    If your private catholic school in Jarkarta, Indonesia where you lived nearly 45 years ago can produce a record with the name Barry Soetoro, born in Honolulu, HI, then that might be your adopted name at that time.

    If Barry Soetoro’s COLB is sealed and archived in the State of Hawaii, then your adoption may have been annulled.

    And finally, if you have never lived in Connecticut and you have a Connecticut based SSN, then US Federal Government took you into custody when you returned to the US from Indonesia as an unaccompanied minor.

    How in the world would anybody prove any of the above in a court of law when not even one of those suppositions has been presented in court over the last four years since Barack Obama first announced his candidacy.

    I see that “Sven Magnussen” is back with a new Latino screen name! Those Norwegian-Latinos are amazing! The “unaccompanied minor” myth is a dead giveaway.

  392. avatar
    G January 10, 2012 at 11:51 pm #

    Absolutely! I think there is strong agreement for that sentiment along ALL sides of the political spectrum.

    I also think it is actually why “conventional wisdom” about Romney’s electiblility is wrong. Obama better hope he gets to face Romney in the general. I predict Romney-bot’s “say anything” used car salesman appeal isn’t going to fare that well under the actual heat and scrutiny that the Dems *and* the media will bring, once this moves to a General Election contest. The more I see of him, the less impressed I am and the more I feel he’s a paper tiger and won’t hold up well in the general. Romney so reeks of fakeness that the more you are exposed to him…the less you think of him. That pretty much sums him up.

    The desire to beat Obama can only carry someone so far. That weak argument amongst the GOP should be applied to ALL of their candidates running. That logic just means that in a poloarized environment, most of those voters will get in line in the end and support whoever the GOP winner is, regardless. Perception and success simply beget “viability” as a result. Therefore, any of the other candidates who can prove they can pull off winning a competitive primary can easily make just as strong an argument of “viability” as Romney.

    If anything, the others all seem to actually stand for “something” and can at least provide something for their supporters to actually rally around and be “for”…their “not Obama” argument is still there for them, regardless of who they chose. The GOP wants to nominate the guy that the Obama campaign has spent all its time preparing to face. One of the things that benefitted Obama so well in 2008 was that the GOP was caught a bit flat footed when he took over. They had spent the prior several years in detailed preparation of running a campaign against HRC. Oops for them.

    joyeagle: People are tired of the practiced politician with no conviction about anything but getting elected.

  393. avatar
    DG January 11, 2012 at 12:05 am #

    THanks! I sent all this off to my friend and she was glad to have something more concrete than “Are you REALLY that stupid?” as a reply. LOL

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The only evidence that Obama was adopted is that he went by the name “Barry Soetoro” on an Indonesian school registration form when he was 6. The original Fox News report that featured the school registration also said that school officials said it was common to put the father’s last name and religion on the school forms.

  394. avatar
    JPotter January 11, 2012 at 12:15 am #

    G, Joyeagle, I disagree. Paul’s speech was a ramblin’ wreck. It started well but ran on. Romney certainly isn’t a lock yet … but I stand by my posts. Disagreement and speculation make this fun πŸ™‚

    I heard Paul has pledged not to run as an Independent. That’s good for the GOP.

    The only outcome less interesting (IMO) than Romney v. Obama, would be Huntsman v. Obama. I’d prefer a more clearcut choice, a chance for the electorate to indicate its preferences. Paul, Gingrich, or Santorum would provide that, to a varying degree, in different ways. A more polarized election could be divisive, but I’m thinking, let’s lay some issues on the table and choose up sides. And considering the current level of partisanship, what’s a bit more? *cough*

    Definitely agree with Romney’s authenticity (lack thereof). Obama would wipe the floor with him in a general election. Ironically, his selling point is, as confirmed by exit polling, “electability”.

    I haven’t seen any speculation about VP possibilities. I know that’s deep speculation, but I get a lot from a candidate from their choice of running mate. Ron and Rand? Ha! Perhaps one of the party favorites that took a pass could be lured in? Or a ‘safe’ play, taking a senator?

  395. avatar
    John Reilly January 11, 2012 at 12:17 am #

    Mr. Gonzalez: It bears repeating that the Indonesian school record is not admissible as evidence in any court in the United States. Just because some news organization got a copy of a private record does not make it evidence. Dr. Taitz does not get this and neither do you. Thus, even if the school record had useful information, it is not evidence. Soon enough, Dr. Taitz will, once again, be in front of a judge wondering where is her evidence, any evidence.

    And so what if President Obama was adopted by Mr. Soetero, and naturalized by him in Indonesia, despite Indonesian laws which say those things can’t happen? Under good old American law, those happeniongs have no more bearing on the President’s eligibility than Speaker Gingrich’s adoption, President Clinton’s adoption, or President Ford’s adoption.

    Once the President was born here, absent some affirmative act by him, he was a natural born citizen.

  396. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 12:34 am #

    A fair prediction. I think the key thing we are both predicting is that Perry’s journey ends in SC, just as Bachmann’s ended it IA.

    From the point of purely respecting those who put themselves out there, under such public fire, for the sake of giving it their all, I don’t fault Perry for giving it one last ditch try and effort and SC always made sense for him to put his eggs in that basket. I agree with all “conventional wisdom” on this one that he is most likely toast, but I try to not be arrogant and rigid in my thinking and rule anybody out until the actual results do that for them. His path to recover and make up ground is the most difficult, but that only gives him a very low probability of pulling it off – not rule him out entirely. I like being able to sit back and not have a horse in this race and just enjoy the fascinating dynamics as they play out. I also like that this is a year where the unpredictable can happen, so if Perry pulled off some sort of miraculus last-minute come from behind (similar to Santorum’s unexpected surge all in the very last week before IA), I would definitely be surprised, but I’d find myself also cheering him, not because I want him to win or go on, but simply for accomplishing such an amazing feat. Same way I felt about Santorum and his exciting performance in IA. (I seriously think it deserves eventual book/movie treatment, purely on the true American “underdog” story it provides).

    So yeah, I see the same folks moving on from SC as you do. Where I differ is I’m not convinced that Gingrich will have a weak performance in SC. He has always had a fairly decent base of support both there and in FL that were completely separate from the “bubbles”. I am not sure if the Conservative vote remains split between him and Santorum coming out of SC or if that succeeds in finaling settling on a “winner” in that field. For the Deep Red vote – their best long term chances is to consolidate to one candidate as soon as possible…and not that I want to smack down Perry, but they would be wise to at least leave him for dead in SC and not further split their decision.

    But whether they can decide between Santorum and Gingrich and which direction they go… to me, that will be the true fascinating story out of SC. If they rally to Gingrich and Santorum cannot pull off at least 15% of the vote, then Santorum should also drop out before FL. If it goes the way you predict, however, I think you are correct that even a weak Gingrich result will still have Gingrich carry on to FL, regardless. Gingrich is so unpredictable, that I do not feel I have any comfortable grasp on what leads him to drop out of the race – period.

    I don’t expect Huntsman to do that well in SC. I think he’ll put in some face time there simply for the sake of doing so, but I see FL as being where he’s really staking his next test on staying alive or not. From my perspective, Huntsman is the biggest purely “theoretical” threat to Obama that is in this race, but due to what the GOP has become, he’s got the least amount of chance to be chosen…for that very same reason. Irony at its finest!

    Paul is just a threat – Period. Not just to the GOP establishment, but I think his movement would be a much more credible General Election threat than anyone gives him credit for. I really see Paul being a whole unique dynamic and force of nature that stands on its own merit – it is not just about the candidate, but more than anyone else, truly a powerful movement and message on its own. I simply believe that history shows that the political dynamics shift over time regardless of whether the party’s names stay the same. Some of the shifts are more gradual, some of them are more seismic. This country is experiencing a shift in views and policy that has been going on for some time and has truly opened a much greater receptibility to many of Paul’s positions. It is simply unwise to ignore him and those he represents. Their voices are growing and simple dismissiveness of their concerns and their growing power is not going to prevent that trend from continuing.

    Paul goes on regardless. His expectations are much lower in the SC dynamic, but I think he can still deliver a decent showing even there and still have the opportunity to add a few all-important delegates to his count.

    Both Paul and Romney are the only near-certainties to be still in this race and fighting this out by the time Super Tuesday rolls around. Everyone else’s chances of still being there are still very much at risk.

    joyeagle: I predict tickets out of SC are Romney, Huntsman, Paul, Santorum, and a weak Gingrich. And then out of Florida Romney, Santorum and Paul.

  397. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 12:49 am #

    I get what you are saying. I think we all agree that Romney has always been the odds-on favorite and wins just seem to support that theory. The story of this race has always been really about Romeny and if anything comes along to change that eventuality.

    Simply due to the structure of this year’s calendar for delegate accumulation, it does not become an automatic lock regardless of how well Romney does in the early races. His chances remain the most likely, but there is still so much that can change and play out as long as there remain other candidates in the race who can put up competitive numbers. Paul seems certain to do that through the near term. The question is who else can remain standing and if the Deep Red vote can consolidate. There remains also the slight but off-chance that Huntsman can supplant a weakened Romeny as long as Huntsman remains viable in the race. For now, he lives to fight another day…(really in FL and I suspect through NV as well. A poor performance in SC is not going to cause him to bow out). Unlike the others competing, Huntsman is really fighting for the same pool of votes that Romney is and benefits any time someone realizes how flimsy Romney really is.

    I agree, this has all been great fun and I’ve so enjoyed both watching this and sharing analysis, especially with you and JoyEagle. With all such things, we’re all likely to get a few of our predictions right and a few predictions wrong and there is nothing wrong with that. It is all part of the fun. If we truly were able to know what happened and not be surprised, it simply woudn’t be much fun at all. Therefore, I’ve been fascinated and perhaps enjoyed the areas I got wrong perhaps even more than the one’s I was right on. I actually really like that it keeps me on my toes and is out of my control πŸ™‚

    JPotter: Romney certainly isn’t a lock yet … but I stand by my posts. Disagreement and speculation make this fun

  398. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 12:56 am #

    That is the big “fear” question from the establishment and media on Ron Paul and why they keep asking him it over and over and over again.

    Actually, like almost everything Paul says, he’s stuck to his guns and continued to give pretty much the same consistent response every time they press him.

    He’s merely endlessly stated that he has no intention to run as an Independent and is (rightly) focused on winning this GOP race. He has repeatedly (and wisely) refused to rule out any of his options for what happens next if he doesn’t succeed.

    So no, he has not “pledged” anything.

    Nor has he ever “threatened” anything either.

    Either of those two conclusions is a false representation of Paul’s consistent position on this issue, yet the media keep making them.

    I totally understand and respect his reasoning and I would take the same position as he did if I was a candidate and faced with such questions.

    JPotter: I heard Paul has pledged not to run as an Independent. That’s good for the GOP.

  399. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 1:09 am #

    I disagree on that. I can understand saying that a result that everyone assumes all along is not very interesting (Romney v. Obama), particulary when that leaves Obama with such a bland opponent with such a plastic and fake face.

    Huntsman becomes “interesting” as an alternative because of three key factors:

    1 – It would truly be one of the most unexpected outcomes that could result from this race and therefore Obama’s campaign would also be least prepared to face it.

    2 – For such to happen, it would indicate that moderates have all of a sudden regained a voice in the GOP and open the question to whether sanity could return to the party’s platform and behaviors.

    3 – It would pose a true and unexpected threat to the Obama campaign. In such a polarized political environment as we have, the partisan votes are pretty much locked up in their own camps. Therefore, everything else comes down to a) success of partisan turnout on each side and b) ability to draw the “unaffiliated” voters that remain legitimately open as “swing” votes. Huntsman would be able to make a huge play for the “swing” votes and even peel away some from the “affiliated” but not necessarily partisan portion of Obama’s camp, because he comes across so reasonable. I truly think he would make the race more of a true toss-up and close election than anyone else in the race.

    Therefore, I feel it would be “interesting” simply because it would be so unexpected, unprepared for and such a nail-biter.

    JPotter: The only outcome less interesting (IMO) than Romney v. Obama, would be Huntsman v. Obama.

  400. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 1:32 am #

    On this, we agree. I actually think it would be healthier for all sides to have a true contrast on display for the voters to chose from, as long as that contrast came from a place of sincerity in its positions.

    Paul and Santorum I totally place as sincere in their beliefs and you can pretty much trust them to mean what they say.

    Gingrich…he’s just a story of his own. An endless stream of ideas, that’s for sure. Admidst that spaghetti thrown at the wall, there are definitely some interesting and sincere points that stick. But Newt also is a unique mess of unstable meglomania and contradictory positions as well… His fluctuations between bombastic and intellectual and contradictory would be extremely lively and unpredictable…so it would be a very energized and unpredictable dynamic to play out…that’s for sure. But no, I do not get the sense that I can trust him on what he says in the same way I do with Paul and Santorum. I feel each of those is sincere and is running in service to the ideological causes that they personally believe out of strong conviction.

    Newt is for Newt first. It truly is a different dynamic from both the cause driven convictions above and also differs from Romney’s shameless pandering and utter fecklessness.

    While Romeny comes of as a spoiled and entitled rich person who simply wants to be President for the sake of being President and will shamelessly say whatever he feels people want to hear in order to get that…

    Newt comes from an actual direction of ego-driven self-conviction that he is always right and that the world needs him as some sort of savior of civilization and that he’ll tell you his way is right because he truly thinks so and that’s all that really matters to him. Newt’s true ideological conviction is more a belief in the power of Newt…

    JPotter: Paul, Gingrich, or Santorum would provide that, to a varying degree, in different ways. A more polarized election could be divisive, but I’m thinking, let’s lay some issues on the table and choose up sides. And considering the current level of partisanship, what’s a bit more? *cough*

  401. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 1:51 am #

    Yeah…that truly would be an area for pure speculation at this point. We could have some harmless fun with coming up with various combinations for each of the competitors. πŸ˜‰ Some of that could just be funny and other speculation could be serious speculation on what would be the combination to both be a good fit for the candidate and also shore up any broader “support” weaknesses in their own party factions and with the general electorate – in other words, the serious full set of calculations that is the first true “test” of Presidential leadership a nominee can display.

    Obviously (and yes, also objectively), McCain totally bombed that test and calculus last time.

    In terms of media speculation, there has actually been quite a bit – all pretty much simplistic and at a dullard-level of laziness of just plucking out any “shiny” object name that’s currently “hot” in the GOP, regardless of any serious weight of those factors described above.

    All the media speculation that I’ve heard has really only focused on Romney. Talk of Rubio, Pawlenty, Portman, McDonnell, Christie, Ayotte and Haley have dominated this fluff chatter amongst the beltway blatherers. I still view it as way too early for a serious look at the final dynamics and factors that need to be accounted for in order to make those types of calculations.

    What I do feel fairly confident in ruling out for VP is those GOP Presidential contenders that have fallen out of the race so far – Pawlenty, McCotter, Cain and Bachmann. I don’t see any realistic scenario where any of the remaining candidates would weigh those real factors and come up with any of those four as their proper fit and key to success.

    Poor Pawlenty… I know he’s going to be the most disappointed of the bunch to find that out, but he’s simply too bland. It is quite obvious he’s desperately vying for a strong position in a Romney administration and would love that VP spot…but seriously…bland plus bland – even Romney has better sense than to make that blunder.

    JPotter: I haven’t seen any speculation about VP possibilities. I know that’s deep speculation, but I get a lot from a candidate from their choice of running mate. Ron and Rand? Ha! Perhaps one of the party favorites that took a pass could be lured in? Or a safe’ play, taking a senator?

  402. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 2:04 am #

    Yeah, that is the role I see Huntsman playing too – siphoning votes from Romney.

    So, he mostly functions as the “Romney spoiler” in the race.

    Although, because they are competing for votes amongst such an overlapping segment of the partipating electorate, there is still the slight chance that Huntsman could not just siphon votes from Romney, but become his replacement, if those backing Romney start re-assessing the wisdom of betting this race on such a flimsy and plastic shell of a candidate. If Huntsman is able to prove he can continue to put up respectable enough numbers in FL and then NV to justify going on further past that… he truly opens the doorway to being taken as a more serious potential threat in this race than just playing the “Romney spoiler” role…

    joyeagle: I (as a Paul supporter) am glad Huntsman is staying in. I do believe he will Siphon Romney support.

  403. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 2:19 am #

    I simply don’t get this weird gut-rationale assumption that you and other conservatives seem to be endlessly susceptible to.

    Neither Gingrich’s nor Perry’s arguments were “anti-capitalist” at all, they were anti-unchecked greed.

    If you can’t see the difference between ethical capitalism and the corrupt and damaging actions of the Bernie Madoffs, Gorden Gecko’s and the types of practices that led to the Wall Street bailouts and our financial market collapse, then you are truly failing to grasp the actual arguments and stakes in play here.

    I simply don’t understand why Conservatives keep making the mistake of leaping to such stark and simplsitc binary conclusions in life and automatically ceding all grounds of reason or distinction to the realm of their “opposition”. It is just self-destructive folly.

    I feel like I’m hearing primitive voices shouting an overreactionary and mindless “fire…bad!” like some cartoon charicature of Frankenstein’s monster and unable to even make the basic distinction between burning themselves or their house in a fire and also seeing the huge need of fire in our lives to survive (heat, light, cooking…i.e. where “fire…good”)….

    Such simplistic and unthinking reactionariness always causes me to shake my head and it is where an independent but thinking pragmatic like me keeps getting pulled away from my own natural sympathies and inclinations towards certain traditionally “conservative” positions and towards a more receptive range of choice in the “liberal” arguments, where people seem to recognize and be willing to deal with the actual complexity and nuance that exists in real life….

    joyeagle: I also believe that Gingrich and Perry using liberal, anti-capitalist arguments against Romney will only help Paul and Santorum, and seal the death certificate to their failed campaigns.

  404. avatar
    Lupin January 11, 2012 at 3:30 am #

    G: I simply don’t understand why Conservatives keep making the mistake of leaping to such stark and simplsitc binary conclusions in life and automatically ceding all grounds of reason or distinction to the realm of their “opposition”. It is just self-destructive folly.

    Because of sheer ignorance.

    joyeagle claims to be a Christian but, when pointed out how her beliefs differ from St Augustine and other fathers of the Church, shuts down.

    She somehow believes Gingrich and Perry are anti-capitalist.

    I understand indoctrinated people who follow their dogma and nothing but. What I don’t understand are idiots who flail around and don’t even understand their own dogma.

  405. avatar
    JPotter January 11, 2012 at 3:31 am #

    G: Therefore, I feel it would be “interesting” simply because it would be so unexpected, unprepared for and such a nail-biter.

    G, I agree it would be an interesting surprise, but the “interesting” I am looking for is ideological difference. Representation of opposing viewpoints. Huntsman and Obama would clash on policies, particularly what to cut and what to tax, but even there, Romney would offer a greater distinction.

    Also, I still suspect Romney, being fake (as usual), is, to a degree, only playing to the right, and would ultimately govern right of center, sort of like the Red’s white Obama. I think the Reds are going Romney, and will be disappointed, whether he wins or loses.

  406. avatar
    JPotter January 11, 2012 at 3:41 am #

    G: Bachmann….

    Yes! Palin II! Haha. Often, the VP choice is a moderating, conciliatory move, meant to balance the perceived objection to the top of the ticket. Such as Obama’s selection of Biden, and how W’s seclection of Cheney was seen at the time. Yes, even McCain’s pick of Palin. Bush I’s Quayle. Some picks, Reagan’s Bush and Clinton’s Gore, have been close to two-packs. Close.

    For once, it’d be awesome to see someone truly double-down …

    Santorum and Bachmann. Whoot!

    Of course, it won’t happen, she’s tainted goods now. But what a show!

  407. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 4:16 am #

    Just for the record, I’m fairly certain Joyeagle is a he, not a she.

    I believe he has explained the term has native american connotations.

    I also think Joyeagle is an honest broker in conversations and deserves tolerance and patience in communications, even when some seemingly peculiar statements are made.

    Joyeagle has simply been more accustomed to the memes of conversation that float around conservative circles and has been open about simply having jumped to certain conclusions, because that’s what he had been exposed to and hadn’t really been in a situation that required giving it more thought.

    Joyeagle seems very sincere and if anything, I think he’s developed some of these snap judgments ironically out of merely being too trusting of what some people have told him that he simply assumed he “identified with” in the past.

    So if anything, I think it is a common human condition at play here that simply stems from being too trusting and taking what one assume’s is “their tribe” on pure faith and without much question and having been unfortunately too conditioned to conversely view those “outside the tribe” with excessive suspicion.

    I believe he is a man of sincere conviction and sincerely cares about others and this country. I sincerely do not believe he is trying to antagonize or offend and he’s just used to expressing certain ideas within an audience that uses those memes all the time, without ever having thought more deeply on the topic and realizing some of the implications of what he’s saying or how it must come across to a broader audience.

    He’s repeatedly demonstrated he’s open to fair and respectable conversation and he’s also pretty good at more detailed introspection on issues, when he’s presented with them in a fair and honest manner in return. I do not see him as willfully ignorant at all.

    I am certainly not shy in challenging his assumptions, but I strive to do so in a respectful manner. Sometimes I feel I’ve been too critical in my gut reactions to some of his statements as well. But I have an increasing respect and admiration for his contributions here and providing an honest perspective that mirrors many of our fellow citizens out there. I also greatly appreciate his patience and persistance in coming back here and being willing to reply.

    Please try to put yourself in his shoes for once. In many ways, a lot of the off-hand comments, jokes and views here must come across as not just strange or misguided from his POV, but also sometimes seem like a “hostile environment” or even seem offensive.

    Therefore, I say it is quite a testament to his good character that he continues to come back here and actually engage in honest participation in the dialogue and is not here to Troll, like so many of the intentionally antagonistic and insincere trolls we come across.

    We all can build up emotionally based defensive walls of initial reaction, based on our own ideological leanings. I’m certainly capable of it, although I strive to not let it get the better of me as much as I can help it.

    Serious and honest contributors such as John Reilly, Daniel and Joyeagle might have views that differ from yours (and there will always be areas where you simply disagree), but please be open to also valuing the very real perspectives that they add to the conversation. I’ve certainly been grateful for what they’ve also taught me and where they’ve broadened my understanding of issues.

    But yes, on the issue of how crazy it sounds to hear Gingich & Perry’s statements as somehow “anti-capitalist” or “liberal”…yeah…that invoked the same gut-reaction of shocked disbelief and recoil from me as well.

    I sincerely hope he’ll take the time to explain that POV more and take some time to think through his positions so that he can walk us through the logic behind such conclusions and also address our concerns on the implications….

    Lupin: She somehow believes Gingrich and Perry are anti-capitalist.

  408. avatar
    Judge Mental January 11, 2012 at 4:45 am #

    The betting markets are often a good guide. In the market for who will be the GOP nominee, the bookies are virtually saying it is done and dusted with Romney a long odds-on favourite. These are the available odds….

    Romney 1/6
    Gingrch, Paul, Santorum each 14/1
    Huntsman 40/1
    Perry 50/1

    Interestingly they do also have a market for who will be the Republican Vice President nominee. Obviously their opinion as regards how likely Romney is to win the Pres nomination is to a degree reflected in the available odds…

    Rubio 5/2
    Christie 5/1
    Martinez 10/1
    Ryan 12/1
    McDonnell 14/1
    Barbour, Gingrich, Santorum, Pawlenty each 16/1
    Demint, Thune, Ayote, Romney, Haley each 20/1
    Jindal, Sandoval, Rice, Huntsman, Daniels, Portman each 25/1
    Powell, Cain, Graham, Perry, Snyder each 33/1

  409. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 4:46 am #

    I get what you are saying.

    However, I honestly have no sense of what Romney’s actual stance on any issue is…and if he really has any position that is based on any core conviction at all…or if they are all simply disposable and interchangeable masks he will wear in order to sell himself to whatever audience he feels he needs to pander to at the time. That applies to how I perceive both his current every-changing positions as well as his past documented positions and actions.

    Even worse, if he has actual positions but is so truly able to shamelessly say or do anything to get elected, I fear that he is the most manipulatable puppet there is and that he’d be even more of a disaster as President than anyone realizes – and a disappointment in those terms to both the right AND the left. Without any core conviction and with such a predisposition to pliable pandering, he’d probably drift around in positions and actions simply to appease polls and more alarmingly, the “highest bidder”. I think he’d be about as owned and manipulated by all the powerful special interests as it can get. As there is no real “vast conspiracy cabal” as the paranoids imagine and just the real-world reality of various different plutocratic interests with their own individual needs, such a pliant and plastic President would likely come across very erratic as he panders to each of these different player’s personal needs behind the scenes. He would simply be be shifting like a blowing wind…and about as hollow. Particularly in a first-term, when he would be endlessly focused on sucking up to whomever he thought could get him the financial backing and support for re-election.

    Huntsman would certainly govern right-of-center, but he comes across as quite pragmatic and focused on working for the good of the country and the future. He’s done a fairly good job of sticking to his guns on his positions and not simply pandering to some of the red meat points, just to get elected. So I think he’d be able to draw some clear contrasts based on actual conviction.

    Romney however…most of his statements come across insincere and hollow as it is. Who seriously thinks he can contrast “Obamacare” in the General Election and do it with any credibility that would both satisfy the right and come across in any way as a convincing distinction or valid argument to everyone else. On all the other issues…it will just be a brutual and muddled mess between all the various positions and self-damaging statements he’s made to date and the inevitably endless charade of new pandering positions he makes with each different audience in pursuing a General Election campaign. The Democrats will have difficulty keeping up with all the material he endlessly generates to use against him in a brutal negative advertising campaign and Romney will just be stuck spending most of his debate time and press time having to address those endless questions. It will be a be a very negative and very muddled campaign that only leaves everyone with a bored and confused sense of who he is and what he stands for and why anyone should believe him. None of that is very interesting or appealing as an argument of convincing a broader audience that he’s a better risk than an incumbent they already know…

    I really don’t see Huntsman and Romney as similar in their actual positions or appeal at all. Only in terms of the GOP Primary voting audience’s calculations for why they merely perceive those particular candidates as “electable” and what decisions they are basing their vote on.

    Romney only is perceived as “moderate” and therefore appealing to those audiences because he simply is not convincing as a “Conservative”. Then again, he’s not convincing as a “moderate” either. He’s simply not convincing – period.

    JPotter: G, I agree it would be an interesting surprise, but the “interesting” I am looking for is ideological difference. Representation of opposing viewpoints. Huntsman and Obamawould clash on policies, particularly what to cut and what to tax, but even there, Romney would offer a greater distinction.

    Also, I still suspect Romney, being fake (as usual), is, to a degree, only playing to the right, and would ultimately govern right of center, sort of like the Red’s white Obama. I think the Reds are going Romney, and will be disappointed, whether he wins or loses.

  410. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 4:55 am #

    So yeah, in follow-up to what I just posted, I think any expectation of Romney asserting any backbone and actual conviction in office is woefully naive and giving him too much credit in thinking he’ll change his stripes once in power.

    As I said – I see a potentially erratic disaster. Someone who will leap to start an ill-planned war with Iran and other places without thinking, simply because the neo-cons will immediately pressure him to do so and he’ll be eager to compliantly pander to their inside-the-beltway power structure.

    JPotter: Also, I still suspect Romney, being fake (as usual), is, to a degree, only playing to the right, and would ultimately govern right of center, sort of like the Red’s white Obama. I think the Reds are going Romney, and will be disappointed, whether he wins or loses.

  411. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 4:56 am #

    LMAO!

    JPotter: For once, it’d be awesome to see someone truly double-down …
    Santorum and Bachmann. Whoot!
    Of course, it won’t happen, she’s tainted goods now. But what a show!

  412. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 5:02 am #

    As I’ve said before, the markets just reflect current prevailing perception and momentum. The odds shift as fortunes shift. The markets seem pretty good at picking up on those shifts fairly quickly, but that is about all they are good for – seeing where things are trending at the time.

    Case in point – go back to August and see where the market’s odds were for Perry…

    Romney’s odds have remained fairly consistent, because his trendlines always remained fairly consistent too. He’s always been the perceived winner from the outset, so there’s been no surprise there either.

    Judge Mental: The betting markets are often a good guide. In the market for who will be the GOP nominee, the bookies are virtually saying it is done and dusted with Romney a long odds-on favourite. These are the available odds….

  413. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 5:24 am #

    On the fun side of results, let’s take a look at the lesser reported fun stuff from NH tonight.

    Let’s start with the Democratic Primary.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Democratic_primary,_2012

    Of course Obama won and got all the delegates in that contest. No surprise there: 45,008 votes & 81.9%

    The fun part is examining the rest. 5378 write-in votes were cast (9.8%), so folks were clearly having fun or casting easy protest votes when there was nothing at stake.

    In 2nd place was an unknown and unassuming elderly gentleman from VT who had a simple message of wanting everyone to basically get along better in the world:

    Ed Cowan get’s that surprise 2nd place prize with 859 votes (1.6%)

    http://edcowan2012.com/

    The always interesting social comedy commentary candidate, Vermin Supreme, deserves major kudos in his 3rd place finish!!! (781 votes, 1.4%).

    Vermin deserves a big round of applause for this accomplishment, which greatly exceeded the 41 votes (0.02%) he captured in the 2008 GOP Primary in NH. So kudos to him on his success & again raising his profile and performance.

    http://www.verminsupreme.com/

    Also worthy to note because Vermin beat out the vile Randall Terry, who thought he could get some attention by running in the Democratic Primary. Looks like he got enough of his crazed cult to register as Dems and get him 411 votes for 4th place.

    Of the 14 total names on that ballot, there are only 3 more I’m going to bother mentioning: Aldous Haywood, Darcy Richardson and Aldous Tyler (6th, 9th and 14th places respectively (votes: 384, 245, 91).

    The reason these are worth mentioning is because they were the 3 on the list trying to mount a “serious” challenge to “primary” Obama from the Left.

    Their abysmal performance and ranking shows that Obama’s support is rock solid amongst the Democratic Party voters and that the “Firebagger” whines out in the blogosphere and other claims that Obama’s base isn’t behind him don’t hold up to reality. These numbers can now put to rest the meme pushed in some areas that Obama would face an emerging challenge to his left in the Democratic Primary. I’d say the nail is already in that coffin now and none of those campaigns is going to be a blip on the radar or conversation going forward.

  414. avatar
    Judge Mental January 11, 2012 at 5:41 am #

    G: As I’ve said before, the markets just reflect current prevailing perception and momentum. The odds shift as fortunes shift. The markets seem pretty good at picking up on those shifts fairly quickly, but that is about all they are good for – seeing where things are trending at the time. Case in point – go back to August and see where the market’s odds were for Perry…Romney’s odds have remained fairly consistent, because his trendlines always remained fairly consistent too. He’s always been the perceived winner from the outset, so there’s been no surprise there either.

    That’s all understood of course.

    For some reason the quote I was replying to didn’t show up in my post (J Potter’s observation about a lack of speculation on the VP options). Posting the current odds was supposed to be a light hearted reply to that illustrating some market speculations.

    FWIW my own semi-educated current guess/opinion is the same as it has been for the last several months ie that, barring a very serious catastrophic event, Romney will win the nomination race very easily without even having to engage second gear and will then lose to Obama who will be re-elected with a reduced number of votes from the number he garnered last time. I’ve no firm opinion on who Romney’s running mate will be.

  415. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 5:45 am #

    Well, we still only have 95% of the GOP precincts reporting in NH (285 of 301)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Republican_primary,_2012

    So, just a recap of where things stand in the main race:

    1. Mitt Romney (39.38%) = 7 delegates
    2. Ron Paul (22.83%) = 3 delegates
    3. Jon Huntsman (16.84%) = 2 delegates
    4. Newt Gingrich (9.43%)
    5. Rick Santorum (9.35%)
    6. Rick Perry (0.70%)
    7. Buddy Roemer (0.38%)
    8. Michele Bachman (0.14%) – dropped out last week
    9. Fred Karger (0.14%)
    10. Kevin Rubash ??? (0.10%)
    11. Gary Johnson (0.70%) – dropped out in Dec & switched to Libertarian Party
    12. Herman Cain (0.06%) – dropped out in early Dec
    13. Jeff Lawman (0.05 %)
    14. Christopher Hill (0.04%)

    A very disappointing result for hopefuls Buddy Roemer and to some extent, Fred Karver. As they were both trying to still mount a “credible” campaign and get a boost to gain some media coverage and continue…I’ll be curious to find out if they officially drop out.

    There is strong suspicioun that Buddy Roemer will jump to be on the American’s Elect ticket and therefore get another chance to appear on all 50 state’s ballots and possibly even get into some debates. That will be one of the 3rd party story developments worthy of coverage in play for the General Election cycle.

    So far, it looks like a pretty disappointing night for L. John Davis Jr. and Vern Wuensche and there sincere onsite campaign attempts in NH. Both are so far way towards the bottom of the 33 names on the ballot, with only 15 votes each. (0.01%).

    But hey, at least they are 1 vote ahead of Birther nut Andy Martin so far and his 14 votes… πŸ˜‰

    I’ll wait until the final vote totals are in before providing some more fun analysis and commentary on this race and some of the minor candidates…

  416. avatar
    joyeagle January 11, 2012 at 6:38 am #

    Lupin,

    I refrained from answering your previous question about St Augustine, because personal religious belief and doctrine and church father’s roles in that was so completely off-topic from what we were discussing I didn’t respond … and then Doc C confirmed with his request for us to stay away from that topic.

    As G explained, I am male, married with three kids. My monicker was shortened when I started (came in as Joy vs joyeagle) and several folks assumed female.

    In terms of the “capitalist” argument, i was mostly analyzing this politically vs winnowing out the truth of a candidates stance. The way Gingrich initially framed his argument, as well as the way Perry piled on, came across to the block of voters they are trying to reach as “language of the left” … regardless of any merits of the argument on its own. Gingrich especially will have a hard time arguing it when the light returns to his background with both Freddie/Fannie as well as advising Venture Capitlast clients.

    The best way I can explain it is why Rick Perry went from first to inconsequential in 2 debates. The media all said it was his poor debate performance … and sure that contributed, but it is glossing over the truth. The truth (of course imho) is the substance of what he framed in his argument against illegal immigration and STD vaccinations. It would have been fine for him to argue his desire to fund with in state tuition illegal immigrants. He would have lost some support for folks who disagreed–small amount–not a big blow back. But when he framed his argument as “you all are heartless if you disagree, and you just don’t like people because they have a different last-name” … he got the guteral dismissal from the entire conservative voting block. Why–because he used the “language of the left” to frame his argument. In many people’s mind it confirmed … we can’t trust you aren’t still that guy who supported Al Gore’s campaign as his Tx campaign manager.

    There certainly may be some negative stories that can be explored on Romney’s time in Bain, but for the two of them (Gingrich/Perry) to explore it in such a way that they are doing … while folks still have questions about their sincerity as principled conservatives will destroy their campaigns. That is just my analysis. They’ll score some points with some populists, but it will be a net loss for them.

    Lupin: Because of sheer ignorance.

    joyeagle claims to be a Christian but, when pointed out how her beliefs differ from St Augustine and other fathers of the Church, shuts down.

    She somehow believes Gingrich and Perry are anti-capitalist.

    I understand indoctrinated people who follow their dogma and nothing but. What I don’t understand are idiots who flail around and don’t even understand their own dogma.

  417. avatar
    Hermano Gonzales, Esq January 11, 2012 at 7:57 am #

    John Reilly:
    Mr. Gonzalez:It bears repeating that the Indonesian school record is not admissible as evidence in any court in the United States.Just because some news organization got a copy of a private record does not make it evidence.Dr. Taitz does not get this and neither do you.Thus, even if the school record had useful information, it is not evidence.Soon enough, Dr. Taitz will, once again, be in front of a judge wondering where is her evidence, any evidence.

    And so what if President Obama was adopted by Mr. Soetero, and naturalized by him in Indonesia, despite Indonesian laws which say those things can’t happen?Under good old American law, those happeniongs have no more bearing on the President’s eligibility than Speaker Gingrich’s adoption, President Clinton’s adoption, or President Ford’s adoption.

    Once the President was born here, absent some affirmative act by him, he was a natural born citizen.

    The State Department policy of not allowing parents to move their children to a foreign land and renounce the US citizenship of their children is guidance posted in 2009. It’s not law.

    In fact, anyone can move out of the US and renounce their US Citizenship regardless of age. A renunciation is a request to terminate US Citizenship and is not final until a Certificate of Loss of Nationality is issued.

    When a minor renounces, the Certificate of Loss of Nationality is issued to the child for their benefit and held in suspense by the Executive Branch of the US government until the 6 months after the child turns 18. The child has until 6 months after the 18th birthday to return to the US and request their Certificate of Loss of Nationality be withdrawn. If so, the US Executive branch considers the matter closed and as if the child never lost their US citizenship.

    In Obama’s case, he maintained his Indonesian Nationality for 5 years after his 18th birthday. He even traveled to Indonesia to renew his Indonesian passport before traveling to Pakistan.

    Later, Obama naturalized as an American citizen. His ineligibility is not due to where he was born. It’s due to actions he voluntarily embarked upon after he reached the age of majority.

  418. avatar
    John Reilly January 11, 2012 at 8:22 am #

    Mr. Gonzalez: You have no citations to amny of your assertions of law or fact. For example, I have never seen any citation to the President having an Indonesian passport at any time. (One of the regulkars here says that the Indonesians deny that the President was adopted in Indonesia or became a citizen.) The available evidence suggests he traveled back and forth on a U.S. passport. Similarly, there is no evidence that the Presidsent was ever naturalized in this country. Either of these events would have documentary evidence. No one has ever come forward with any, and you do not even make a pretense of doing so.

    Soon enough there will be a “trial” in Georgia on the issue of the President’s eligibility to run for re-election. What actual evidence would you suggest be offered, not just your speculation?

    Incidentally, Dr. Taitz is now searching for the AP reporter who obtained the Indonesian school record. Whether that reporter is anywhere near enough to be subpoenaed is doubtful. Even if he or she was in Georgia, a reporter typically cannot authenticate “facts” which he or she uncovers in research for a story except to prove lack of malice in a libel case.

    So why don’t you help us all out here and provide actual facts, and how you suggest they be proven.

  419. avatar
    The Magic M January 11, 2012 at 8:25 am #

    > He even traveled to Indonesia to renew his Indonesian passport

    … which is supported by *what* evidence precisely? I mean the “to renew” part, not the “traveled to” part, to be precise.

    > Later, Obama naturalized as an American citizen.

    … which is supported by *what* evidence precisely? Have you seen those elusive nationalization papers that birthers would pay $$$ for? Or is this just another baseless speculation backed up by your own fantasy and the contents of your cereal box?

  420. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 8:28 am #

    Thank you for that explanation from your perspective. That helps a bit to understand it in a different light.

    I get what you mean by a negative reflexive reaction and I totally suspected that Perry’s real fall was because of exactly what you said.

    I guess I could still use a better understanding of what exactly determines what you folks view as “language of the left” and why?

    Is it merely because someone on the left first made that argument? And therefore, you are reflexively opposed, simply because they were for it?

    …Or is there more to it than that….?

    Somehow, as a people, we’ve got to find a way to “speak the same language” if we’re ever going to get anything done or fixed around here. Whenever I actually get into an honest conversation with someone of a different viewpoint and it doesn’t get bogged down with terminology that “turns off” one or the other of us, I find we often really do have similar goals in life…

    If it is a matter of certain ways of phrasing things and relating things that causes defensiveness and turn-off in the conservative mindset to everyone “outside” of that (which you obviously perceive as “left”, so I’ll just not quibble on that)…that can actually be fixed by educating us on how to dialogue with you better.

    But it is a two way street and conservatives need to at least try to understand why certain things they say or do evokes immediate defensiveness in the other direction too…

    If it comes down to more than phraseology and approach and is more about needing to see an “us vs. them” and simply oppose “them” mindset, I need you to be open and honest about that too…

    joyeagle: In terms of the “capitalist” argument, i was mostly analyzing this politically vs winnowing out the truth of a candidates stance. The way Gingrich initially framed his argument, as well as the way Perry piled on, came across to the block of voters they are trying to reach as “language of the left” … regardless of any merits of the argument on its own. Gingrich especially will have a hard time arguing it when the light returns to his background with both Freddie/Fannie as well as advising Venture Capitlast clients.
    The best way I can explain it is why Rick Perry went from first to inconsequential in 2 debates. The media all said it was his poor debate performance … and sure that contributed, but it is glossing over the truth. The truth (of course imho) is the substance of what he framed in his argument against illegal immigration and STD vaccinations. It would have been fine for him to argue his desire to fund with in state tuition illegal immigrants. He would have lost some support for folks who disagreed–small amount–not a big blow back. But when he framed his argument as “you all are heartless if you disagree, and you just don’t like people because they have a different last-name” … he got the guteral dismissal from the entire conservative voting block. Why–because he used the “language of the left” to frame his argument. In many people’s mind it confirmed … we can’t trust you aren’t still that guy who supported Al Gore’s campaign as his Tx campaign manager.
    There certainly may be some negative stories that can be explored on Romney’s time in Bain, but for the two of them (Gingrich/Perry) to explore it in such a way that they are doing … while folks still have questions about their sincerity as principled conservatives will destroy their campaigns. That is just my analysis. They’ll score some points with some populists, but it will be a net loss for them.

  421. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 8:32 am #

    Hello Sven. Still pushing your unique “Barry and the Pirates” fan-fic stories, I see…

    Hermano Gonzales, Esq: In fact, anyone can move out of the US and renounce their US Citizenship regardless of age. A renunciation is a request to terminate US Citizenship and is not final until a Certificate of Loss of Nationality is issued.

  422. avatar
    Bob J January 11, 2012 at 8:39 am #

    Thank-you Mr. Esq.

    That was entertaining. You must be the top convoluted writer of your school. My personal favorite was this line;

    ” When a minor renounces, the Certificate of Loss of Nationality is issued to the child for their benefit and held in suspense by the Executive Branch of the US government until the 6 months after the child turns 18.”

    My second favorite was this gem;

    “The State Department policy of not allowing parents to move their children to a foreign land and renounce the US citizenship of their children is guidance posted in 2009. It’s not law”

    Your post was pretty funny. I think your name is a bit childish, but good one

  423. avatar
    J. Potter January 11, 2012 at 11:58 am #

    G: I get what you mean by a negative reflexive reaction and I totally suspected that Perry’s real fall was because of exactly what you said.

    I second that … Perry stumbled, and that surely cost him some, but to voters who vote for who they identify with, that doesn’t matter. It makes him seem human. Certain recent presidents fumbled constantly, yet they won the office. And if, by any chance, Perry is the nominee, you know the Red base isn’t going Obama due to fumbling on Perry’s part! Certain positions, however, will drive them nuts. His stance on immigration issues (ironic, because, as he pointed out, his state is on the front line, he does have to deal with it, it’s not just a far away conceptual irritation for him) certainly cost him.

    Santorum/Gingrich fell below the 10% threshold? Bummer for them.

  424. avatar
    James M January 11, 2012 at 1:36 pm #

    G:

    The always interesting social comedy commentary candidate, Vermin Supreme

    I love it when someone I know personally, runs for office! Make no mistake. Vermin does tend to be a complete nut. He is, after all, literally a clown. A man who can be found at any Rainbow Gathering with a giant toothbrush and $3000 worth of bumper stickers. A man whose political message basically boils down to both “Brush Your Teeth — It’s the Law!” *AND* “US Out Of My Mouth!”. But despite his wingnut persona, he’s a very intelligent, extremely likable person. I actually wouldn’t want him to be cursed with Public Office, to be honest.

    I love it that he actually showed in a primary. It really made my day!

  425. avatar
    James M January 11, 2012 at 1:38 pm #

    Hermano Gonzales, Esq: When a minor renounces, the Certificate of Loss of Nationality is issued to the child for their benefit and held in suspense by the Executive Branch of the US government until the 6 months after the child turns 18.

    This can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations or in the Federal Register? Please cite it. Thanks.

  426. avatar
    Hermano Gonzales, Esq. January 11, 2012 at 4:59 pm #

    James M: This can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations or in the Federal Register?Please cite it.Thanks.

    It’s policy, not law. Much like the policy a parent cannot renounce the US citizenship of a child issued in 2009.

    The President of the US is the final arbiter of who is issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality and who it not. A person who chooses to renounce and is denied can sue in US Federal Court, but the President can ignore the writ if he/she chooses.

  427. avatar
    Hermano Gonzales, Esq. January 11, 2012 at 5:08 pm #

    The policy is there because a minor has the right to recapture their US Citizenship until 6 months after their 18th birthday.

    TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > § 1483

    § 1483. Restrictions on loss of nationality

    (b) A national who within six months after attaining the age of eighteen years asserts his claim to United States nationality, in such manner as the Secretary of State shall by regulation prescribe, shall not be deemed to have lost United States nationality by the commission, prior to his eighteenth birthday, of any of the acts specified in paragraphs (3) and (5) of section 1481 (a) of this title.

    ———————————————————————————–

    § 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

    (a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

    (3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
    (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
    (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

    (5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or

  428. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 11, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

    I would use “law” to describe the decision of the US Supreme Court in Perkins v Elg. You’re not a real attorney, are you?

    Hermano Gonzales, Esq.: It’s policy, not law. Much like the policy a parent cannot renounce the US citizenship of a child issued in 2009.

  429. avatar
    Bob J January 11, 2012 at 5:42 pm #

    Hermano Gonzales, Esq.: It’s policy, not law. Much like the policy a parent cannot renounce the US citizenship of a child issued in 2009.

    So, if my child was issued in 2008; can I renounce his citizenship?

    Sorry, but this post was to see if I could use the quote function correctly. Also, the child issued line is funny.

  430. avatar
    Sef January 11, 2012 at 5:46 pm #

    It sounds like H.G., Esq is subscribing to the theory of an infinite number of multiple parallel universes in which anything that can happen does happen in at least one of them. There may be a universe out there where Esq’s ramblings are true, but it isn’t this one.

  431. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 6:21 pm #

    I don’t view him as actual wingnut at all. I think he’s simply in the proud and long historied tradition of very dedicated “performance artists” who take on a role akin the the theatrical technique of “Theater of the Absurd” to poke fun at the system. I find it to be a high form of art and social/political commentary and think it always has a welcome place in our society.

    I hope he’s encouraged by his impressive success here and can use that to get some further attention and continue to raise his profile.

    Lots of love & respect for Vermin Supreme here! I hope he’ll honor us with a victory post or two on his impressive 3rd place finish. πŸ™‚

    James M: I love it when someone I know personally, runs for office!Make no mistake.Vermin does tend to be a complete nut.He is, after all, literally a clown.A man who can be found at any Rainbow Gathering with a giant toothbrush and $3000 worth of bumper stickers.A man whose political message basically boils down to both “Brush Your Teeth — It’s the Law!” *AND* “US Out Of My Mouth!”.But despite his wingnut persona, he’s a very intelligent, extremely likable person.I actually wouldn’t want him to be cursed with Public Office, to be honest.

    I love it that he actually showed in a primary.It really made my day!

  432. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 6:24 pm #

    A correction to issue:

    This seems to be the correct site for his current 2012 campaign:

    Vermin Supreme for President Emperor 2012

    http://www.zerohits.com/vermin/

    G:
    I don’t view him as actual wingnut at all.I think he’s simply in the proud and long historied tradition of very dedicated “performance artists” who take on a role akin the the theatrical technique of “Theater of the Absurd” to poke fun at the system.I find it to be a high form of art and social/political commentary and think it always has a welcome place in our society.

    I hope he’s encouraged by his impressive success here and can use that to get some further attention and continue to raise his profile.

    Lots of love & respect for Vermin Supreme here!I hope he’ll honor us with a victory post or two on his impressive 3rd place finish.

  433. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 6:35 pm #

    A few more nifty anectodes on Vermin’s 2012 campaign. I wish I could find an email or “contact” option on any of his sites and congratulate him directly… so far, I haven’t found one, so if anyone knows how to reach him, let me know.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermin_Supreme

    2012

    Supreme glitter bombs Randall Terry during a forum.
    Vermin Supreme is currently campaigning in the 2012 election. The following are some of the milestones in this campaign:
    Oct 29, 2011: He is to be listed on the 2012 Democratic Party primary ballot in New Hampshire.[12]
    Oct 29, 2011: He participated in a satirical debate against a representative of the campaign of deceased British occultist Aleister Crowley.[13]
    Dec 19, 2011: He participated in the Lesser-Known Democratic Candidates Presidential Forum and “glitterbombed” fellow candidate Randall Terry, claiming that Jesus told him to turn Terry gay.[14]

    In the 2012 Democratic Primary in New Hampshire, Supreme received 831 votes (Obama won the primary with 48,959 votes). Supreme was also profiled in USA Weekend during the campaign

    LMAO! Glitterbombing Randall Terry and telling him that Jesus told him to turn Terry gay! Way to Go Vermin Supreme, way to go!!!

    ROTFLMAO! This campaign season definitely needs a lot more Vermin Supreme in it!!!

    And some other fun coverage of his campaign:

    http://www.inquisitr.com/179627/vermin-supreme-2012-candidate-promises-to-travel-back-in-time-and-kill-baby-hitler-video/

    http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/280419/20120111/vermin-supreme-president-free-ponies-zombie-energy.htm

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/09/vermin-supreme-2012-presidential-candidate_n_1194609.html

    G:
    A correction to issue:

    This seems to be the correct site for his current 2012 campaign:

    Vermin Supreme for President Emperor 2012

    http://www.zerohits.com/vermin/

  434. avatar
    Hermano Gonzales, Esq. January 11, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Perkins v Elg

    “Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance. P. 307 U. S. 334.” – Chief Justice Hughes

    Elg did not voluntarily renounce her citizenship. The SoS determined she effectively renounced by moving to Sweden with her parents as a minor and obtained Swedish citizenship. Elg does not have an Oath of Renunciation on file with the Department of State.

    Obama was adopted in Hawaii before he was removed to Indonesia to live with his new father, Lolo Soetoro. Obama’s name was changed to Barry Soetoro after the adoption in Hawaii was finalized. After the Soetoro’s arrived in Indonesia, Barry Soetoro completed an Oath of Renunciation to voluntarily renounce his US Citizenship.

    After the age of majority, Elg requested and received a US passport to return to the US and live as a US citizen. We she tried to renew her passport, the SoS said she had renounced her citizenship and denied her a passport renewal.

    After Obama reached the age of majority, he went back to Indonesia to renew his Indonesian passport before traveling to Pakistan. The difference between Elg and Obama is that Elg did not give up her US citizenship voluntarily and Obama did.

  435. avatar
    Daniel January 11, 2012 at 7:43 pm #

    Hermano Gonzales, Esq.: Obama was adopted in Hawaii before he was removed to Indonesia to live with his new father, Lolo Soetoro. Obama’s name was changed to Barry Soetoro after the adoption in Hawaii was finalized. After the Soetoro’s arrived in Indonesia, Barry Soetoro completed an Oath of Renunciation to voluntarily renounce his US Citizenship.

    After the age of majority, Elg requested and received a US passport to return to the US and live as a US citizen. We she tried to renew her passport, the SoS said she had renounced her citizenship and denied her a passport renewal.

    After Obama reached the age of majority, he went back to Indonesia to renew his Indonesian passport before traveling to Pakistan.

    You write good fiction.

    I don’t suppose you have any objective, substantive evidence to back up all of this fanciful meanderings through a fictional plot?

    No?

    Alllllllllrighty then.

  436. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 8:11 pm #

    Well, here’s a bit more detail on where the penalties & rules for delegate allocation currently stand in the GOP Primary contest:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012

    Guidelines for primary and caucus dates

    Based on a temporary committee’s proposal, the Republican National Committee (RNC) adopted new rules for the timing of elections on August 6, 2010, with 103 votes in favor out of 144.[71] Under this plan, elections for delegates to the national convention were to be divided into three periods:[72]
    January 3 – February 4, 2012: Contests of traditional early states Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina,
    February 7 – March 24, 2012: Contests that proportionally allocate delegates,
    April 3, 2012, and onward: All other contests including winner-take-all elections.

    By the fall of 2011, several states scheduled contests contravening this plan, pushing the primary calendar into January. These contests are in violation of RNC rules, with New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, Arizona and Michigan set to be penalized with a loss of half of their delegates: New Hampshire will be penalized from 23 delegates to 12, South Carolina from 50 to 25, Florida from 99 to 50, Arizona from 58 to 29 and Michigan from 59 to 30. As they are holding non-binding caucuses, Iowa, Colorado, Maine and Minnesota will not be automatically penalized; their contests to bind national delegates will be held later.

  437. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 8:18 pm #

    Of further interest on that same link:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/01/the-occasional-open-thread-2012-election-edition/#comment-146099

    Superdelegates

    According to the Republican National Committee’s Council’s Office, there are 132 superdelegates[127] in 2012, delegates whose votes are not bound by their state’s results. As only 6% of the total delegates, the Republican superdelegates are not expected to have the same impact the Democratic superdelegates had on the 2008 primary.

    Of the 132 superdelegates, as of Jan. 4, 2012, 13 had endorsed Romney, 3 had endorsed Perry, and 1 had endorsed Santorum.

    The site also has a really good and updated primary calendar, with a breakdown of each state’s delegate allocation formula as well.

    An interesting update in the early schedule – the Northern Mariana Islands is holding their “nonbinding caucus” on Feb 25th and they have 9 delegates at stake!

    Considering that all-important NH was only a 12 delegate contest…any candidate wise enough to not forget about the NMI can work to rack up some of those 9 to their totals…

  438. avatar
    Northland10 January 11, 2012 at 8:19 pm #

    Hermano Gonzales, Esq.: Stuff

    Sven, someday, I would love to hear why you find it necessary to use so many sock-puppets, especially since we all know it is you anyway (the magic CLN phrase).

  439. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 8:22 pm #

    That link also has an update on how IA’s allocation should happen:

    No national convention delegates were assigned at the January 3 precinct caucus. The vote on the candidates was nonbinding but delegates from each precinct to the March 10 county conventions was selected. The county conventions will elect delegates to the 4 congressional district presidential caucuses and to the Iowa State convention.

    12 delegates are elected May 21 at the congressional district presidential caucus, 13 delegates are elected June 16 at the state convention and 3 RNC party delegates are assigned from Iowa. The delegates are not bound to the results of the January 3 precinct caucus.

    Since the January caucus have no direct influence on the election of delegates to the National Convention, Iowa is not penalized for breaking the RNC election guidelines.

    All the delegates from Iowa are unbound and free to vote for the candidate of their choice.

  440. avatar
    NBC January 11, 2012 at 8:22 pm #

    Hermano Gonzales, Esq.: Obama was adopted in Hawaii before he was removed to Indonesia to live with his new father, Lolo Soetoro. Obama’s name was changed to Barry Soetoro after the adoption in Hawaii was finalized. After the Soetoro’s arrived in Indonesia, Barry Soetoro completed an Oath of Renunciation to voluntarily renounce his US Citizenship.

    No evidence exists of either adoption or renunciation. Time to return to reality my confused friend.

  441. avatar
    Majority Will January 11, 2012 at 8:24 pm #

    NBC: No evidence exists of either adoption or renunciation. Time to return to reality my confused friend.

    I think Sven’s ship sailed long ago.

  442. avatar
    Sef January 11, 2012 at 8:43 pm #

    Hermano Gonzales, Esq.: Obama was adopted in Hawaii before he was removed to Indonesia to live with his new father, Lolo Soetoro. Obama’s name was changed to Barry Soetoro after the adoption in Hawaii was finalized. After the Soetoro’s arrived in Indonesia, Barry Soetoro completed an Oath of Renunciation to voluntarily renounce his US Citizenship.

    And you have evidence that would be admissible in a court of law of these statements?

  443. avatar
    G January 11, 2012 at 8:59 pm #

    There is also a link that looks pretty good for following the GOP contest results and seeing the projected delegate allocation totals accumulate:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2012_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries

    Also, 100% of the precincts have now reported in NH. Final results:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Republican_primary,_2012

    1. Romney: 39.25 %
    2. Paul: 22.88%
    3. Huntsman: 16.88%
    4. Gingrich: 9.42%
    5. Santorum: 9.40%
    6. Perry: 0.71 %
    7. Roemer: 0.38 %

    Final thoughts on the main tier, listed above:

    1 – A very strong showing and solid win for Romney. He builds momentum in continuing to push the “inevitable” argument. If he pulls of a win in SC, it is hard to not see a rush to consolidate behind him and the window of time for a Conservative “Deep Red” alternative will have diminished significantly.

    2. A very strong showing and solid night for Ron Paul. He’s a long term force and factor in this race, no matter how much the rest of the party and media doesn’t want it to be true.

    3. Both Paul and Romney are benefitting at this stage from there being such a large field and undecided / split support that is out there. That will continue to be the case for both of their candidacies, at least in the early stages. The true test for Paul will be to retain impressive numbers during all the Feb contests (mostly caucus format, which favors his organization). As long as he demonstrates he can still contest this and grab delegates during that time period, he cannot be counted out.

    4. Romney’s “inevitability” – with the dynamics of a back-loaded calendar, it will take much longer for anyone to cross that “nominee” threshold. I believe the current magic number is 1143 delegates. No matter the outcome, the calendar means that won’t occur until sometime in April at the earliest. However, if Romney continues to win EVERY early contest and is not kept out of 1st place in any race by the end of Super Tuesday, then this race can be considered over. The allocation math for 1st place wins over other places means that an unbroken string through that point in time is unlikely to be credibly challenged; even though most of the larger winner-take-all contests don’t happen until April.

    5. Therefore, the only thing that can change the current “inevitability” dynamic is for someone other than Romney to win at least one contest between now and by the time “Super Tuesday” is over. (Mar 6th). An unbroken string of wins up to “Super Tuesday” might seem unbeatable on its own – as the narrative is quite strong. However, the unique nature of having to compete in 11 different locations on the same day still keeps a small window open, even under that scenario, for someone else to find a place where Romney’s organization isn’t as strong or where his focus is neglecting that area and pull off a surprise win.

    6. Huntsman – his total is enough to continue on…but will he only get single digits in SC and will that matter at all? He needs to do well in FL to continue on after that. I still think he needs to demonstrate a 10-15% threshold to justify continuing beyond that…but with NV only a few days later, he might still stay in long enough to compete there and see those results through no matter what.

    7. Gingrich & Santorum – their final numbers both fell below the 10%…clearly nothing that helps them with momentum moving forward. SC is where they clearly have to make their case and perform. 10% won’t cut it for either of them in SC. Still, Newt is Newt and he’s got a good fan base in FL. So who knows if any result can convince Newt not to continue along, at least for now..and as long as he still has someone willing to throw money towards his campaign. I suspect Newt to go to FL regardless. Santorum’s fate is really tied to demonstrating he can do well in SC.

    8. Perry – even though he wasn’t competing in NH, this is a dismal result. SC is clearly expected to be his goodbye performance. A comeback at this stage for him there would truly be an amazing story. Whether he get’s completely discounted there or serves to just hurt the vote margins of Santorum & Gingrich remains to be seen…

    9. Roemer – a really bad turnout for him as well. He’s not on the SC ballot, regardless. His below expectations poor showing in NH pretty much kills his chances to be heard any further in the GOP contest. Expectations are for him to drop out soon and pursue the Citizens Elect ticket. That is probably his only remaining path to get his important policy messages of campaign financing reform and similar government corroption reforms heard.

  444. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 11, 2012 at 9:14 pm #

    Are you trying out material for a new novel?

    Hermano Gonzales, Esq.:
    After Obama reached the age of majority, he went back to Indonesia to renew his Indonesian passport before traveling to Pakistan. The difference between Elg and Obama is that Elg did not give up her US citizenship voluntarily and Obama did.

  445. avatar
    JPotter January 11, 2012 at 9:27 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Are you trying out material for a new novel?

    I wonder how many birther alternative histories are in the works out there? I have mused it would be a masterful spoof to attempt to meld all of birtherism into one storyline (Wow! This Obama guy sure does get around! The places he goes! The people he meets! The lovers he has!) … also incorporating all of his supposed “handlers” fighting for control of their progeny at every step, battling for supremacy and ultimate control of the true prize … The Second Term. Such limitless promise! Oh, to have the powers of a President unbeholden to any electorate! >:)

    But who has the time.

  446. avatar
    dunstvangeet January 11, 2012 at 9:40 pm #

    Sef: And you have evidence that would be admissible in a court of law of these statements?

    Sven never has anything admissible in any court of law… We know his sock-puppets well.

  447. avatar
    Keith January 11, 2012 at 10:04 pm #

    Northland10: Sven, someday, I would love to hear why you find it necessary to use so many sock-puppets, especially since we all know it is you anyway (the magic CLN phrase).

    Brother Gonzo is trying to appeal to the Latino conspiracy constituency.

  448. avatar
    John Reilly January 12, 2012 at 12:21 am #

    Dr. Taitz is now running a video with a new twist on the Indonesian theory. Just when you thought you knew all of the permutations, more arise.

  449. avatar
    G January 12, 2012 at 12:58 am #

    Well, for the final NH results analysis – one last look at the little knowns and how they fared:

    We will start with some notable names that completely failed the “statistical noise” threshold and therefore can consider their attempts to be an utter bust:

    First of all, Birther wackjob Andy Martin ended up with 17 total votes (0.01%). Not that anyone actually paid attention to his little campaign…but does he now completely fade back away, or is there some other state he’s latched onto to also be irrelevant to the e