• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On January - 19 - 2012

Perry’s out! Newt’s up! Romney’s down! Newt’s ex-wife attacks! Romney’s taxes attack him! And the South Carolina primary is in two days!

Let’s get ready to rum-m-mble!!!

Newt has pulled to a possible tie or better with Romney and is drooling at the possibility of beating Romney. Meanwhile, now that Romney’s been exposed as having lost in Iowa and is deteriorating in SC, maybe the inevitable nominee has a lot longer fight to become inevitable.

Tonight’s debate begins at 5:00 pm PST/8:00 pm EST on CNN and streaming at http://cnn.com.

Please join us for an always entertaining and insightful live blog of tonight’s probable mudfight!

May the dirtiest candidate lose…to Obama.

Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

489 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. bito says:

    Catholic leaders to Gingrich, Santorum: ‘Stop perpetuating ugly racial stereotypes’

    Mr. Gingrich has frequently attacked President Obama as a “food stamp president” and claimed that African Americans are content to collect welfare benefits rather than pursue employment. Campaigning in Iowa, Mr. Santorum remarked: “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”

    “At a time when nearly 1 in 6 Americans live in poverty, charities and the free market alone can’t address the urgent needs of our most vulnerable neighbors. And while jobseekers outnumber job openings 4-to-1, suggesting that the unemployed would rather collect benefits than work is misleading and insulting,” the letter adds.

    […]

    He also said that Gingrich and Santorum’s “rhetoric around class and racial issues is in many ways out of line with Catholic social teaching. That is something Catholic voters will be concerned about, particularly given that both Santourm and Gingrich have not been shy about talking about the importance of their faith from a personal perspetcive and also how it shapes their political views as well.”

    http://www.americanindependent.com/209366/catholic-leaders-to-gingrich-santorum-%E2%80%98stop-perpetuating-ugly-racial-stereotypes%E2%80%99

    But what do they care about their hypocrisy, people of color and the poor are not their base. Damn the teachings!

    The letter>>> http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/newsroom/press/catholic-leaders-challenge-gingrich-and-santorum-on-divisive-rhetoric-around-race-and-poverty/

    Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Institute Leadership Team:
    Sisters Patricia McDermott, RSM (President) Eileen Campbell, RSM Anne Curtis, RSM Mary Pat Gavin, RSM Deborah Troillett, RSM

    • I think the real significance of this comes from the fact that it’s Catholic bishops because both Gingrich and Santorum Catholic, especially Gingrich who says his Catholic faith ‘saved him’ from he past life of debauchery.

      • bito says:

        KQ, yes the bishops also signing the letter does carry more weight but the wait for an answer may have to come after the primaries. Just not their base.

        • Oh absolutely. That’s why it’s better the primaries go on for a while. Because when Mittens dives for the center it will look more obvious if he has to do it in a short time.

          Ironically I’m starting to think Mittens will be easier to defeat than Gingrich.

          • bito says:

            Excellent KQ, I like that thought. The longer the primaries continue, and their pandering to the RW they have to do, the more obvious it will making the turn to the center. Iowa was proportional, so no massive win of delegates for anyone, SC is proportional and Florida will be the first test of winner take all. With more proportional the more pandering? Or the opposite? Hmmm, I need to think about that one.

    • AdLib says:

      It’s just a political calculation, all that matters is winning the SC vote so the damage they’re doing to themselves and society by pandering to racists is just part of the price.

      They don’t care, in fact, they’re knowingly voicing racism. They know exactly what they’re doing and could care less who is upset by it because it’s a necessary step to take in their views.

      Character is probably the most important trait in a President, principles and stands on issues flow from that. And anyone who is willing to do the most hostile and disgusting things to become president, have in fact disqualified themselves from being considered by thoughtful people as a President.

      • Agree on both points.

        Let me just go back one step from what you said. Character is misunderstood by so many too it’s not the BS family values character either. Technically Romney has that in spades even though he probably is that way more from learned traits and a guilt based need to fit the perfect Mormon family (It’s not just Mormonism either many religions like Roman Catholicism base their behavior modifications on guilt as well). But true character begins with human empathy. You have to be able to put yourself in other people’s shoes. Then all the other character traits cascade from that. I mean it’s what the golden rule is all about. For example caring that people don’t go broke over healthcare bills stems from that personality quality. You also need to be morally strong and have some lines that you don’t cross as well. These are more innate characteristics like a person’s instinct to protect family. In this case the family is 330,000,000 Americans. The second trait is why almost every president is more authoritarian once they have 330,000,000 million souls to protect.

  2. AdLib says:

    Excerpts from a Fact Check article on the debate:

    Romney now has acknowledged the negative side of the ledger from his years with Bain Capital, but hardly laid out the full story. His claim to have created more than 100,000 jobs in the private sector as a venture capitalist remains unsupported.

    Romney mentioned four successful investments in companies that now employ some 120,000 people, having grown since he was involved in them a decade or ago or longer. From that, he subtracted the number of jobs that he said are known to have been lost at certain other companies.

    What’s missing is anything close to a complete list of winners and losers — and the bottom line on jobs. Bain under Romney invested in scores of private companies that don’t have the obligation of big publicly traded corporations to disclose finances. Romney acknowledged that he was using current employment figures for the four companies, not the number of jobs they had when he left Bain Capital, yet took credit for them in his analysis.

    =====================

    PAUL: “I had the privilege of practicing medicine in the early `60s, before we had any government (health care). It worked rather well, and there was nobody on the street suffering with no medical care. But Medicare and Medicaid came in and it just expanded.”

    THE FACTS: Before Medicare was created in the mid-1960s, only about half of the elderly had private insurance for hospital care, and they were facing rising costs for those policies on their fixed incomes. Medicare was hugely contentious at the time, seen by many doctors as a socialist takeover, but few argued that the status quo could be maintained.

    A Health, Education and Welfare Department report to Congress in 1959, during the Republican administration of Dwight Eisenhower, took no position on what the federal government should do but stated “a larger proportion of the aged than of other persons must turn to public assistance for payment of their medical bills or rely on `free’ care from hospitals and physicians.”

    Paul advocates a return to an era when doctors would treat the needy for free. But even in the old days, charity came with a cost. Research from the pre-Medicare era shows that the cost of free care was transferred to paying customers and the insurance industry.

    =========================

    http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20120120/ap_on_el_pr/us_gop_debate_fact_check

    • Chernynkaya says:

      Excellent. And here’s an article about what life was like before abortions were legal:

      The Beatles ruled. The mini was in. I was seventeen, and pregnant. What happened next is what could happen again.

      http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/way-it-was

      • AdLib says:

        I’m sold. Let’s just decide to go back to the past and everything will be perfect just like it was in the past!

        Whoops, sorry black people, gays and women but it was better for white men back then.

    • kesmarn says:

      Things that were rarely — if ever — seen in most hospitals in 1960:

      Open heart surgery
      Organ transplants
      PICC lines
      MRSA infections
      Many artificial joints
      Laparoscopic surgeries
      MRIs
      CAT scans
      PET scans
      Nurses in pants

      EDIT:And no, I do not have first hand info on this! 😆

      • Exactly for one major procedure you are talking about costs in the 6 figures. It is completely idiotic to think individuals can pay for their own care. I’ve payed almost a cool quarter mil myself and about 75% of that was with insurance.

        Then again when you have aholes out there like Romney who says over $360K is not much money it does not help the matter.

        • kesmarn says:

          Right, KQ. One serious bout of illness can wipe out a lifetime of savings and then some. Who has a spare million stashed away in case they need a liver transplant?

          O/T But I see in the sidebar that we lost Etta James today. RIP, Ms James.

      • SallyT says:

        Kes, but the nurses had those cute little caps!

  3. kesmarn says:

    Coming from someone who viciously, ruthlessly attacked Bill Clinton, based on much less damaging private peccadillos, this is really rich:

    I think the destructive, vicious negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.

    When I think of the way Clinton and his family were tormented at length over something that a young woman was very likely paid to set up (who keeps a stained dress hanging in a closet for many months?), as compared to the cruel and calculating way that Newt abandoned two women, I get a whole new insight on what the word “hypocrite” really means.

    • Hey kes, it’s really sickening isn’t it? Newt gets all upset about being asked a question concerning his private life, and attacks King for asking such a question, instead of manning up and answering it.
      As you say, he sure wasn’t worried about exposing Clinton’s private life.
      I find it troublesome in the way he viciously went after King for asking that question. Once again he tried to control the debate and pick and choose which questions he thought appropriate.
      Newt doth protest too much I think. His vehement reaction to the question shows, to me, that it really struck a nerve and his ex wife’s story is absolutely true.

      • kesmarn says:

        I had the same reaction, KT. That’s an old trick: becoming outraged and accusatory toward the person who dares to speak the truth. Put the other person on the defensive and take the spotlight off yourself.

        As you say, his behavior makes the ex-wife’s statement ring true.

        • bito says:

          k’es, I heard a top aide to Newt while he was both Whip and Speaker, that this is very typical of Newt, SOP. I don’t know if this is true, but he said Newt has done the same thing in every debate, outrage over the media/question.
          Went on to say that he shouldn’t become Prez because of his shooting off at the lip, without thought.

          • kesmarn says:

            I’ve read similar accounts, b’ito…that Newtie made many enemies on his own side of the aisle with his high-handed “leadership style” (euphemism for bullying).

            I think he has very few serious backers outside of the religious right wackos and the racist demographic.

    • “Peccadilloes” Ding Ding you said the magic word of the day. :mrgreen:

  4. MurphTheSurf3 says:

    NITE ALL.

  5. Chernynkaya says:

    TPM: Mitt Romney’s Very Bad Night In Charleston
    http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/mitt-romneys-very-bad-night-in-charleston.php?ref=fpa
    Video of him booed over tax-return dodge.

  6. Chernynkaya says:

    The Hill says the two tailor-made for Dems attack ads are Mitt’s response about abortion, and the “real streets” statement.

  7. Chernynkaya says:

    EDIT: Nevermind--we missed it.

    In the meantime, Obama’s at the Apollo LIVE. Watch it here:

    http://www.rentadrone.tv/cspan/cspan/

  8. AdLib says:

    Now John King is being a “stuttering prick” trying to justify his asking the ex-wife question at the beginning to Newt and all the hacks at CNN are assisting. What losers.

    Maybe we should put CNN and The GOP in Thunderdome and let them demolish each other.

    • What disappointed me was how kow-towed King was by Newt’s attack and the audience cheering Newt. The audience loudly approving Newt’s hypocrisy wasn’t surprising, but it did piss me off. The whole it’s “OK if I do it, but wrong when you do it,” mentality that I am so sick of with these right wing cretins.

      • AdLib says:

        That’s a kind of cowardice I haven’t seen from any other moderators, as poor as they’ve been. Only King has backed down when the frothing audience has booed them.

        King embarrassed himself and deserved being exposed through Newt’s BS rampage.

    • Nirek says:

      King should have followed up with more tough questions like “how are you not a hypocrite when you presided over the impeachment of President Clinton while you were cheating on your second wife with your present wife?”
      Then he should have asked the others if that was okay to do for a politician?
      Lots of questions and zero answers.

      • AdLib says:

        That’s far too thoughtful a question for King and CNN. If this wasn’t more about ratings than doing a public service, they wouldn’t have had such an American Idol type format and audience.

        Can’t expect pigs to perform ballet.

    • It was a legitimate question but Gingrich just turned it back on him. King should have hedged the question maybe asking Newt if he thought the timing was suspicious.

      It was not like when Stephanopoulos asked Obama about Rev. Wright because Obama already addressed the issue with his race speech.

    • choicelady says:

      You preach “family values” you owe us an explanation of your actions. Simple as that. If the Obamas ever disagreed over whose turn it was to wash and dry the dishes, the end of the world would be declared. Newt is like ALL the RW extremists -- rules are for YOU, not for him. God has forgiven HIM -- but not Bill Clinton? Newt SAID so. Family values arguments weigh much more heavily than any actions of any pol who espouses them. The hypocrisy is beyond disgusting. Swaggert wanted a prostitute’s 12-year-old child to watch him and her mother get it on -- and people STILL listened to him and thought him Godly. It’s beyond my comprehension how easy it is to blow off personal responsibility and keep on getting people to follow these utterly immoral hypocrites.

      • Agree 100%! All Swaggert had to do was go on TV and cry like a baby for a few moments, begging forgiveness, and his warped character was suddenly washed clean. This is one big problem I have with Christianity as a whole. Like mafia hit men going to confession after killing people and expecting god’s forgiveness. Sickening.

    • bito says:

      edshow Ed Schultz
      Please tell me Mitt Romney didn’t say he’s from “the real streets of America” #maybewallstreet

    • Chernynkaya says:

      John King made Newt a hero to the Right with that question. He’s a big reason Newt may win SC.

      • bito says:

        5 Reasons To Be Glad You Didn’t Watch The CNN South Carolina GOP Debate

        http://www.politicususa.com/en/cnn-republican-sc-debate

        Final Verdict: The first hour of this debate sizzled. The second hour fizzled. Mitt Romney may have lost South Carolina tonight. With only four candidates on the stage viewers were able to get a longer look at all of the candidates, and this did not benefit Romney. If Gingrich wins in South Carolina, it will raise questions about whether Mitt Romney has a problem with Southern voters, and it will extend the nominating process and expose more of Romney’s weaknesses. If Santorum or Paul can’t pull off a win in South Carolina, the GOP contest will become a two person race. Mitt Romney will have lost two of the first three contests, and the narrative of his inevitable nomination will be shattered.

        The big winner tonight was President Obama, because he is going to get to face one of these four in the fall.

        • I just couldn’t bring myself to watch yet another political circus. How many debates have there been already, 15?
          But the silver lining, I suppose, is that the sheer number of these spectacles is damaging to the GOP as a whole. If these four cretins are the best they can come up with, I have a pretty high level of confidence in a second term for Obama.

        • Chernynkaya says:

          I agree with the analysis, bito.

  9. AdLib says:

    I say, “Go Newt, you disgusting human being, beat Romney in SC and you’re both doomed.”

    • Chernynkaya says:

      I’m feeling more and more confident about the general election. You know what I think will happen in a Mitt/Obama debate? Mitt will do that condescending thing like McCain did (did he say something like “you people?”), and look like the dick he is. And he will stutter and get a deer-in-the-headlights look.

  10. SallyT says:

    If Newt wins So Caroline, I wouldn’t stand to near him. You might get your eye put out by the buttons popping off his shirt from his chest all puffed out.

  11. MurphTheSurf3 says:

    I campaigned for Barack in South Carolina in 2008. I recognize that crowd. South Carolinians have been embarrassed for three years that their state proved that Obama was an acceptable Southern candidate. Most, in that state assumed Edwards would take the state.

  12. AdLib says:

    Two highlights, Newt’s attack on King and Mitt’s “Maybe” to following his father’s example on releasing tax returns.

  13. Chernynkaya says:

    Now they can all go offstage and release the farts they’ve been squeezing in.

  14. AdLib says:

    Who’s staying on CNN and who’s going to MSNBC?


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories
Features