quick and dirty

So Mitt Romney Won New Hampshire, Let’s Hang Out

Mitt Crazy Eyes/9000/My Twinn Doll Romney has been declared the winner of the New Hampshire primary, seizing 37.3 percent of the vote, according to AP, with 43 percent of precincts reporting as of the time that this post was delivered to the Internet. Ron Paul is second with 23.4 percent, and Jon Huntsman scurried up to third place with 17.4 percent.

Newt Gingrich is fourth with 9.9 percent of the vote, Rick Santorum is fifth with 9.8 (ooh! closeness) and Rick Perry is sixth with 0.7 percent.

Twenty-three percent reporting was enough for AP to call the results, so Romney gave the above acceptance speech at the wee hour of 8:30PM, just half an hour after New Hampshire polls closed. So it’s time for you to go to sleep now and hope for a better 2013. ORRRR you can hang out because Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman are both planning on heading to South Carolina, as are (naturally) Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, and they have all Said Things or are about to! So thank you and not-goodbye! [NYTimes]

9:41 — Ron Paul said things. Highlight: “I sort of have to chuckle when they describe you and me as being DANGEROUS!” He also forgot his children’s names.

9:52 — Huntsman has given his speech. Liddy Huntsman is sparkly. The gist: “Third place is a ticket to ride” and “Here we go to South Carolina!”

10:01 — Both Santorum and Gingrich are speaking at the same time. They just don’t give a damn! Santorum’s daughter Elizabeth looks ready for a guest role on Downton Abbey. Gingrich just looks SAD, MAN. But he has declared: “This campaign will go on to South Carolina.”


10:08 — Someone who is perhaps new to speeches has called Romney’s speech tonight his “best speech.”

10:41 — Frothey thanks New Hampshire on Twitter for, uh, keeping his “momentum” going even though all the weepy teabaggers mostly stayed home and left him in fifth place.

10:50 — We are already talking about South Carolina now, since New Hampshire sucks. Oh look, non-candidate teevee comedian Stephen Colbert is polling ahead of Jon Hunstman among gullible twits, make a surprised face!

10:57 — The media interest in this primary has officially nestled into its grave. “So apparently there is this place called South Carolina we are supposed to care about,” ruminates the NYTimes.

11:06 — CITIZENS ARE NOT PSYCHED. MSNBC’s data just presented upon the television screen shows that 55 percent of non-Romney-voting people in New Hampshire’s primary would be “dissatisfied” if Romney became the Republican nominee.

11:22 — “[W]e are left with a half-dozen halfwits who want to defeat Barack Obama and become leader of the free world.” – A British lady.

On that delightful note, SNOOZE, fellow citizens of our attempted “European-style social welfare state.”

About the author

Liz is a writer. She has written for this site, evidently, and also The Awl, The San Francisco Chronicle, NPR, The Economist and others. She is the author of a short story collection, Cover Story.

View all articles by Liz Colville
What Others Are Reading

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.


          1. Tundra Grifter


            But then she was done in the by Sticks Poll.

            Which turned out OK, because that Bricks Poll is a hard way to go.

    1. glamourdammerung

      He's been campaigning for 5 years now for this showing?

      I am not sure why you seem to think this is bad.

      Papa Doc Paul got even less with even more years of failing to win a presidential primary, let alone election under his belt.

    2. Tundra Grifter


      This is the guy who lost to John McCain in 2008. Now he thinks he's going to beat Mr. Obama?

      This is the best the GNoPee got?


      1. RavenRant

        Public displays of affection can be irritating, but public displays of "I can barely force myself to make physical contact with you" are creepy and sad.

  1. PuckStopsHere

    What I have learnt tonight: Mormons don't smoke and they don't drink but they sure lie their asses off.

    1. Fare la Volpe

      These are people who have to convince themselves everyday that their prophet read golden plates no one ever saw out of a hat no one ever saw using a magic seer stone no one ever saw. Lying comes second nature.

      1. Jukesgrrl

        Considering Utah's First Place showing in the "who watches the most online porn" customer tracking, we would do well to assume they are lying if their lips are moving.

    2. natoslug

      Which, were Mitt to be subjected to the same rules as those of the everyday Mormon rather than a Platinum Class Mormon, would at a minimum mean a loss of his temple recommend. The 13th Article of Faith, per the Mormon UberBible:
      “We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.”

      And yet, the important thing to the LDS I still know is not that he presents the faith as one full of lying, conniving douchebags, but that he is in name LDS even if not in action and therefore about to bring about a Godly reign on earth or some such bullshit.

        1. mourningnmerica

          Lizzie, this is your old buddy. I hope you will still consider me a pal. But is this really a time to make ANY pro Barry comments? Are you not a lot concerned about the President signing the defense bill? The one where they can hold American citizens without representation or trial, in perpetuity? Has Obama EVER looked as much like the same damn thing as Romney? Do you really see an important difference? Because I can assure you, they are both part of the same problem. Is is time to get out of denial and onto the understanding that, like the others, Obama is just another Wall Street flunkey. To deny this any longer is just willful.

          1. user-of-owls

            Sounds more like the boy is pining for a candidate that's a Dalai Lama/Nelson Mandela/Sparkly Peace Unicorn smoothie.

            But maybe I'm just being willful.

          2. Limeylizzie

            I'd be contented to live anywhere, what would I care, as long as you were there.Skies may not always be blue, but one thing's as clear as can be,I know that I could be willful with you, my darling, if you could be willful with me.

          3. PalinzADummy

            I *do* not understand what people expect POTUS to do! In the face of a situation like this where the Repiglicunts have tied troop funding to the NDAA, the bill, or at least significant portions of it having to do with funding our troops, HAS to pass~! And if you can't get X+1 people to support detaching the desireable provisions, then WTH is the President supposed to do? If he vetoes it, they will override his veto and get what they want ANYWAY, PLUS all the damaging provisions. He has done the only sensible thing he could. Honestly.

          4. mourningnmerica

            I appreciate your honest response, without feeling like you have to attack me personally.

            Here is what I think he should have done. I would value your reply to know it you agree or not.

            He should veto it. Then let them override it if they could get the votes. Because it's the right thing to do. Because due process is the most basic right we have. Because it would have even made sense to do so, politically.

            The consensus her seems to be that the veto would be overridden. I don't think it would have been. Dems would have been reluctant to cut him off at the knees. When Presidents veto a bill, sometimes their party will coalesce around them, circle the wagons, if you will. Especially at a time of so much bad blood. I may be wrong, it may have passed anyway.

            But even if his veto were to be overridden, what is the problem? Why do something he considers wrong? He would have been saying that he would not acquiesce to something he considered morally reprehensible. Why not do it?

            And this is not to mention that this would have been a winning issue for him. Do you think if they were fighting this issue out in front of the American public, the public would have been in favor of indefinite imprisonment of Americans without due process? He could have demanded they take that part out, and, very possibly, they would have had to.

            Finally, where is our defense of freedom? Why is everyone laying down? Why do we expect so little? If it comes to supporting Obama doing something wrong, or supporting a basic American freedom, why not support freedom?

          5. PocketsTheClown

            The soundbite is Iran gets nuke so Obama pusses out and vetoes. If the bill doesn't get an override, it looks bad for anyone in an election fight.

            So I guess I agree. He's not chickenshit, he's like megasuper chickenshit, afraid of the soundbite on the off-chance it will cause loss of Senate.

            Can we talk about some Palin tits again now?

          6. PalinzADummy

            I try never to mount ad hominem attacks. I disagree with your analysis. You're not offering any facts here, just guesses. "What is the problem," you ask, cavalierly. Don't you *know*? The problem is that if the bill passes into law over his veto, there is little to nothing that he can do to prevent it from being carried out exactly as the Republicans have written it. He has already placed his objection to certain provisions of this bill on the record. In addition, he has issued a signing statement that clearly sets forth how his Administrative agencies are to enact the regulations that will make the provisions of the bill law. In his signing statement he limits how the bill may be enforced.

            What you think, or I think, or what we might guess about how things will turn out are really not as important as the question of what the correct response to this bill would be. Obama is a pragmatist, not a woolly-headed visionary, and it is one of the things I like best about him. I don't need my President to play games of "If this happens, then." I need him to figure out what works best and to set that in motion as far as possible.

            Your ultimate question is bogus, I'm sorry. It's not a question of "supporting freedom" vs. "supporting Obama." Right now, we are in the process of electing a President. We need one to ensure that everything runs as it is supposed to. Someone has to ensure that the troops get paid and Social Security checks go out to old people and Republicans don't pull everything down around our ears. The choices don't look great on the Republican side. On the Democratic side, we have a guy with whom a lot of us have problems. We're not all happy with him, and some of us are downright unhappy. But we don't *have* anyone else. And rather than imitate the Republicans in their desperate quest for a NotMittRomney, it makes more sense to *me* to take the guy we've got. He has flaws, but overall, he's highly intelligent, very competent, has empathy, and is trying to fix things. The other guys are ALL lying. About pretty much everything. So to me, the choice is pretty clear. If I *fail* to vote for the guy who *can* do the job, I'll be stuck with one of the idiots who can't. Abstract concepts like "freedom" sound wonderful, but exactly what does freedom mean to you? To me, it means that women in their reproductive years will not be facing brutal assaults on their reproductive health; infants and mothers will continue to receive assistance from the Federal government to ensure that mothers and their children are healthy; Millions of people who have not had access to health care will have it and such care will be increased and expanded in the coming years to provide everyone with good preventive care and to reduce our chances of becoming a reservoir for rapidly mutating viral pandemics that are changing their boundaries thanks to global warming; Education will continue to be funded; there will be no war with Iran; and we will get a SC justice who is NOT a troglodyte, for a change. THOSE things guarantee the freedoms I hold dear. The abstract concept of freedom that involves taking down the only candidate who seems to want to defend those very freedoms — that I cannot understand or countenance.

            You're welcome to explain further if you wish, but I am not yet convinced of the validity of the points you have raised.

          7. Limeylizzie

            That made me really fucking hot, I am jet-lageed having just arrived back in NYC and click on the Wonkette and there you are, wunderbar.

          8. flamingpdog

            Dude, who do you know at teh Wonkette that they let you make a single post so long? But right on, anyway, Palinz.. I finally realized last night that the reason I have been following the Repooplican debates so avidly is that I have to keep reminding myself what the alternative to Hopey is, and the debates always remind me the alternative to Barry Obama is a complete and total clusterfuck of nightmarish proportions.

          9. PalinzADummy

            Er … no one? I have a crush on Sara Benincasa, does that count?

            I b'leev they've outdone themselves yet again with today's fusterclucking. Naked capitalist greed at its best/worst, and they don't even care no moah.

          10. PalinzADummy

            The more important issue is, the bill passes in all its entirety, INCLUDING THE UTTERLY UNDESIRABLE PROVISION that it may be freely used against US Citizens. As it currently stands, the President's signing statement unequivocally provides that it is NOT to be used against American citizens. THAT is a more crucial aspect of this bill than the one that provides our troops' paychecks.

            President O is a long-sighted man. He sees the legal and political ramifications of these issues on a long timescale. I don't always agree with him, but I respect that he is looking at all possible outcomes, and so far he has been correct more often than wrong.

          11. mourningnmerica

            No. He's fucking nuts. I meant from without when I said without. Our system, as you see it now, is probably not going to last the year. Seriously, chaos is coming to a venue near you.

          12. user-of-owls

            When I was 3, they killed JFK, and chaos was coming soon.

            When I was 8, they killed Martin and Bobby, and chaos was coming soon.

            When I was 13, Watergate exploded, and chaos was coming soon.

            When I was 19, I sat in (or pushed) a car for six hours to get gas, there were revolutions in Nicaragua, Iran and Rhodesia, and chaos was coming soon.

            When I was 20, I was forced to register with Selective Service, Poland was in crisis, we boycotted the Moscow Olympics over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Reagan was elected, and I was fully convinced that chaos was coming soon.

            Etc., etc, etc. So enjoy your moment, kid, because surely this time, chaos is coming soon.

          13. SorosBot

            D'you wear a black armband
            When they shot the man
            Who said "peace could last forever"
            And in my first memories
            They shot Kennedy
            I went numb when I learned to see
            So I never fell for Vietnam
            We got the wall of D.C. to remind us all
            That you can't trust freedom
            When it's not in your hands
            When everybody's fightin'
            For their promised land

            I don't need your civil war
            It feeds the rich while it buries the poor
            Your power hungry sellin' soldiers
            In a human grocery store
            Ain't that fresh
            I don't need your civil war
            Ow, oh no, no, no, no, no

          14. Barb

            This post is the most meaningful, thoughtful and refreshingly honest thing I've read in a long time, thank you.

          15. DrOzarkZ.Hellbender

            "I thought scientists were going to find out exactly how everything worked, and then make it work better. I fully expected that by the time I was twenty-one, some scientist, maybe my brother, would have taken a color photograph of God Almighty — and sold it to Popular Mechanics magazine. Scientific truth was going to make us so happy and comfortable! What actually happened when I was twenty-one was that we dropped scientific truth on Hiroshima.”

            –Kurt Vonnegut, "Address to Bennington College," 1970

          16. not that Dewey

            About that brother:

            His summer expeditions to the mountains of New Mexico for the study of thunderclouds with his colleagues and friends at New Mexico Tech in Socorro, were times of productive delight and inspiration.

            There are rows upon rows of notebooks on shelves in our lab that say "Vonnegut, 1962" or some such. I was once shushed for claiming that cloud seeding was dubious, at best, because we could never know whether it would have rained anyway. BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE GREAT BERNARD VONNEGUT

          17. DrOzarkZ.Hellbender

            It certainly would have helped his reputation if he'd photographed God Almighty, to be sure.

            Kid Zoom and I are watching Ken Burns' The Civil War, and I see that Kurt V is in the voiceover credits! Trying to find details; no luck so far, apart from a very general Wikipedia mention that KV reads an account of "a young soldier reflecting on a visit with a prostitute," which sounds about right.

          18. mourningnmerica

            OK. I only ask that you remember this exchange as we pass through 2012. If I'm wrong, you'll be hearing my apology come the end of the year. If 2012 goes as I expect (and not because of the Mayan calender, or any of the other related nonsense) you'll be hearing from me as well.

            Specifically, and I know you are not asking, but I expect a systemic financial collapse this year. Banks failing in large number, big time financial dislocation around the world Hey, I've been wrong before. Any thoughts?

          19. mourningnmerica

            I'm not a Paultard, dimwit. so suck my fucking dick. And speaking of sucking dick, how is Obama's tasting these days. Try, please try, using your brain.

          20. Gainsbourg69

            It's tasting awesome compared to the shit coming from the right, you smarmy prick.

            "If this elections a bidding war for those who can promise the most benefits, then I'm not your president. You already have that president.

            – Mitt Romney."

            Do you want this fucker running the country, you wild eyed idealist?

          21. Negropolis

            No, you're not a Paultard, you're just a regular troll. And, quite frankly, you need to go. Your schtick is beyond its expiration date. When you use a night about Republicans to continually try to inject how much the president sucks, you're trolling.

            So, yeah, you can fuck off regardless of your candidate of choice. I honestly don't care whether you're a Paultard of an Obama fanboy; what you are more than anything else is a simple, common troll, now.

            I don't know what the fuck you've been smoking, but trust me, I'll pass.

          22. DrOzarkZ.Hellbender

            Count yer blessings. At least we were spared "I thought we liberals were supposed to be open minded" and "Never mind, I shouldn't have even tried to go against the groupthink."

          23. Negropolis

            You want to know the sad thing? I've never particularly been what you could call a supporter of the president. Hell, I didn't even vote for him in the 2008 primary or general (don't ask, long story, all you need to know, however, is that I didn't vote Republican. lol).

            So, when I start to complain about the negativity directed at him, you know something's wrong.

          24. PalinzADummy

            Yeah, it made me LOL hearing YOU of all people defending the O-man. Mostly, apart from trying to explain my own support for him, I try not to respond, but things have gotten so ludicrous that failing to respond is just a guarantee of a future aneurysm, at this point.

          25. PalinzADummy

            No, it is not willful to deny that Obama is "just another Wall Street flunkey," because he simply is not. I just read Politicsusa's analysis of the NDAA bill and the signing statement and I now understand exactly what the President did and why. Given that the bill could pass without his signature, he did the best possible thing. He did not permit them to pass the bill over his veto; he attached a signing statement to the bill to circumvent its worst effects. We now have time to elect representatives who will work towards overturning the parts of this bill that are damaging.

          26. user-of-owls

            New Hampshire, duh! You ever been around those people? The crabby oozes out of their pores. It's contagious, man.

          27. mourningnmerica

            Barb, As I indicated, I consider Lizzie a friend of mine as well. I have for a long time. Is this OK with you?

          28. PocketsTheClown

            HAHAHAHA that's funny. Why so butthurt Dr. Disappointed? The revolution already happened probably on Facebook or something.

            Note: I'm talking about your sadclown about Obama, not any personal shit… er

          29. Barb

            Mourningnamerica, please, you don't have to seek my approval for anything. I could go off on a blistering rant about WHATEVER, especially your calling me "Babs" in a previous post, trying to get a response out of me.
            I'm going to awaken in the morning and be thankful that my daughters are highly educated women, both holding multiple degrees, both nurses, both married to wonderful attorneys, carrying my grandsons, both due on the same day. I'm going to pack a lunch for my Beef-a-roni husband, Jeffery, eat M&M's for breakfast, feed my outdoor wildlife, eat some more M&M's, probably notice a stray gray hair in my bangs and laugh about it. I'll come to Wonkette and bask in the beauty of the amusing people that live all around me. What will you be doing?

            Seriously, no need to reply. Just as if you and I were to meet in real life, I won't look.

          30. flamingpdog

            Oh, jeeze, Barb, Palinz made LL hot this morning and now you're making me hot tonight. Is this Hormone Week at the Wonkette??

          1. DrOzarkZ.Hellbender

            I'd prefer a nice grassy patch of yard to lie out in on hot summer days.

            Can't we all get a lawn?

          2. not that Dewey

            I just love watching those old Alpo commercials, but I can't find them on youtube.

            Can't we all just get a Lorne?

          3. user-of-owls

            Well hurry up already, it's giving me the willies AND the heeby-jeebys. Maybe even some trepidation as well.

          4. not that Dewey

            I know. The image of that horrible, horrible face cannot be unseen. I even gave myself nightmares. Let's just call it a failed experiment.

          5. not that Dewey

            Dr. Moreau was a lightweight. Who among us hasn't, in a moment of autodeification, grafted grotesque visages onto unlikely creatures?

          6. PalinzADummy

            I don't know how serious you're being, but FeralRabidStoatBoy is just barely visible behind Mittens in the frozen video clip. I was looking at his lipless smile when I shut down. I had a lot of trouble sleeping last night, and was late for both my medical appointments today. I'm gettin' out the sleepy-weed tonight fo' sho.

          7. not that Dewey

            Glad I could help.

            Wait! What's that? Is that David Brooks or Erik Erickson in clown makeup? Not horrifying at all!

            And wasn't one of your previous avpics Michele Bachmann in a clown afro? That's not the least bit horrifying, either!

          8. PalinzADummy

            Oh, now you've gone and *totes* hurted my fee-fees, dood. Hmph!

            And that's Newt Gingrich in clown makeup in my av, I'll have you know. *Far* more tasteful than *your* choice of nightmare inducer. And that's a fact.

          9. not that Dewey

            Newt Gingrich. I rest my case.

            You'll notice that you and owls were apparently the only ones who saw it; I switched it in and then spent 10 hours in the field, no reading or commenting, so I had no opportunity to parade my new face around to the greater community before you guys made me change it. What a waste of a perfectly grotesque avatar.

          10. PalinzADummy

            Nuh-uh, dood. Nuh-uh. Newt in *tasteful pastel* clown makeup is way superior as av material to FerretFaceChoadBoy Romney, Mister I-Rest-My-Case.

            Aren't you glad Owls and I saved you from the terrible faux pas of being caught in public with that gruesome lip-lacking ambulatory anal rim?

            Kids these days and their values.

      1. Limeylizzie

        Did I start something? I missed all the blowback as my plane was below 10,000 feet and I had to turn off my laptop.

        1. PalinzADummy

          She says, like butter wouldn't melt in her mouth, and you can see she's hiding behind her back the hand that threw the snowball.

          (smooches Limeylizzie again)

        2. fuflans

          oh lizzie. you almost made me miss those days: walking out of the bar into the departure lounge (with that 1k strut) and then sending that last bombshell txt b/4 you have to shut down for FAA reasons.

          but then i remembered how much i hated that job.

    1. C_R_Eature

      This is one helluva thread and I clearly went to bed too early.

      I think these posts here contain more accurate, cogent political analysis than a month of "Sunday Shows" blowhardism, anything on Fox "News" ever and gigabytes of RedHateFreeperBritebart rants (and NOTHING IN ALL CAPS). Plus, the legendary Wonkette humor.

      You people are the best.

      1. Tundra Grifter


        The measure of a good post is the number of thumbs up.

        The measure of a great post is the number of replies. Not meaningless rants, but real, thoughtful, FUNNY – Wonkette – replies.

        2L hit a grand slam on this one. I don't know what that would be in cricket.

  2. Come here a minute

    So that happened.

    The cool thing is that it's the first time in sixteen years that there's no Democratic primary.

    1. ifthethunderdontgetya

      Kinda sad if you ask me.

      Here we have the most right-wing Democratic President in my lifetime, and after those right-wing policies have failed all but the richest few for 3 decades running.

      1. BarackMyWorld

        Bill Clinton (the guy who signed Welfare "reform", Defense of Marriage Act, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, NAFTA, GATT, and the repeal of Glass–Steagall) says hello.

          1. BarackMyWorld

            Left it out on purpose. Though its time was finally up, DADT was progress compared to what came before it.

            The same can't be said for those other things, which were reactionary, pro-corporate concessions that Clinton signed into law.

            The difference between Obama and Clinton: one kept us in the same place or moves us forward a little but not as far as he could have, the other one took us 2 steps back for every one step forward.

          2. Negropolis

            I don't agree with that. I think the best argument that could be made is that both of them are more in th latter camp than the former. I'm not of the mind that Obama is worse than Clinton. That is a bullshit PUMA/pony-wanting meme. I don't, however, buy the argument that Clinton was so much more conservative than Obama.

            That said, I think even worse in general is this kind of comparison of the two, particularly when one considers the time in which each served the distance of time between when they served. There is plenty of shit Bill would have liked to have done that he couldn't given where the US was, socially. This often seems to be construed to make him look like some kind of closet social conservative, and I don't believe that for a minute.

          3. BarackMyWorld

            Not how they personally felt about things, but just based on their records (which maybe not be fair because I'm comparing 3 years to 8) , it just seems to me like Obama may sacrifice his big goals to accomplish his smaller goals, but most of the time Clinton fully embraced the other team's goals.

            Ask me again in 2017.

          4. Negropolis

            What are these Republicans proposals that Clinton "fully embraced"? I hear about this all the time, but from what I can remember, particularly on a major one liberals try to beat him over the head with, the guy vetoed welfare reform twice before he finally broke. And something like DADT was actually an improvement over the previous policy, and it's amazing he was able to even get that passed back then.

            I simply don't see the daylight between the two that some of my fellow liberals, see. Obama's always talked a good game, but when the rubber has met the road, he has not passed anything I don't think Clinton wouldn't have also passed if he'd been president, today. The difference and distance between the two isn't substance, rather time.

            I'm actually more impressed with Clinton considering where he had to come up from. There was nothing ever risky about Obama's political career prior to his run for the president. Being a liberal Democrat in Chicago ain't no thang. I like this president well enough, but I never saw him more liberal (at least substantially so) than Bill or Hillary when it came to actual voting records on the important things.

        1. Gainsbourg69

          Didn't you know? Obama is blah, so he had nothing to lose. He should be to the left of Noam Chomsky.

          1. RavenRant

            A few days ago, when all the Wonketteers were "blah" this and "blah" that, the ingenious 'mrblifil' coined the term "Blahrack".

            Whenever we are using "blah" and Obama, "Blahrack" should be utilized. It would be wrong to waste this resource.

          2. poncho_pilot

            i swear, i didn't use the R word or make an amusing but awful connection between that song, a certain show that had been on ABC, and someone whose last name rhymes with Sailin'.

          3. poncho_pilot

            all i said was, every time i hear that song, i say: "stfu, Paul." and then go to the next song.

          4. emmelemm

            That was totally random on my part to the word Oblahma and not to anything you may or may not have said.

            Deny everything!

          5. poncho_pilot

            oh. the first reply i posted was deleted by the administrator. it is no longer there. i must've deleted it?

            i mean…i know nothing. nothing.

  3. angerbear

    As long as he keeps up the full-throated condemnation of Mittbot's history as a cold-blooded economic predator (Bain Capital–where good jobs go to die!), I will refrain from commenting on Newt's many obvious and grotesque character flaws.

    1. Jukesgrrl

      No, but he found A voice via a speechwriter and a teleprompter. And I doubt we will ever again hear his own if that liking to fire people is any indication.

    2. RavenRant

      Sadly, he found it, but it was far more sterile, robotic and lifeless than Stephen Hawking's.

      Now, his dialog is being dubbed by a fourth-rate industrial film narrator.

      1. AutomaticPilot

        I think it's a "no" – and totally unrelated, but I want a reporter to ask him if he wears the required Mormon "jesus jammies"

          1. Biff

            In a word, yes. It would be like the equivalent of being defrocked, since they see the garments as being like the robe and collar, but YOU can't see 'em.

      1. RavenRant

        That incident was so… words fail. Everyone was being warm and welcoming, but , fuckme, they were brown, so "Who let the dogs out" is all he could come up with.

        If every person in America who is not a WPWAP* doesn't climb over every malicious obstacle thrown in their path and VOTE, we are in serious trouble.

        *White Person With A Penis

    1. not that Dewey

      Well, at least one of them is named "Tagg". My guess is not a lot of ladies want to be "Mrs Tagg Romney".

      Just look at that face. If that doesn't say "doofus"…

      1. PalinzADummy

        Oh sweet jezus. Is that Tagg? What a horrifying fucking sight.

        I swear, my sexual desire levels just dropped by a whopping 40%. I might never have another wet dream, or even a fit of lust.

    2. Jukesgrrl

      Rockton, YOU LIE! All of Mitt's sons — Tagg (no shit, it's short for Taggert, as if Mitt wasn't bad enough), Matt, Josh, Ben, and Craig — are married. In fact, all but Ben are also fathers. Those Mormons can't wait to have sex and aren't supposed to get any unless there's a ring involved, so Mitt will probably have great-great-grandchildren before he kicks off. Now ladies (and gentlemen for that matter), don't let that stop you. A good sex scandal might improve this boring family.

      1. Biff

        When I was a sprout, the Brown Shoe Co. had a mascot named Buster Brown, who had a dog named Tag. Are they the same?

          1. Biff

            I don't know if they did, I didn't shop there. Went to the Red Wing store on Market St in SF, or to WT Grant's for my PF Fliers.

  4. Texan_Bulldog

    I hate to admit it but for a time I figured Mitt would be passable as president. It's not like he could do more damage than W, but every time he opens his pie hole, I grow to detest him even more. What a dick–hope Newt's PAC buddies beat the crap out of him in SC.

    1. Gainsbourg69

      Thanks to Romney I'm going to star being mean to Mormons. Whenever they offer to mow my lawn I'm going to talk to them about second amendment solutions.

    2. fuflans

      exactly. listening to him tonight was a like an acid flashback.

      to 2004. with cheney lurking somewhere unseemly.

    3. mourningnmerica

      None of them, including Obama, are passable. Change will only come from without, not from within.

        1. PalinzADummy

          A PinkUnicorn SparklyPony From OuterSpace will descend at the last minute in a handsome chrome-fittings-bedecked silvery spaceship to save us from ourselves. I thought that was in the script somewhere. No?

          1. PalinzADummy

            Damned if I know. According to a certain segment of the populace, our President should be able to leap tall buildings at a single bound while simultaneously reciting the Sh'ma backwards and spinning 16 china plates on separate poles on hands, feet, and nose.

    4. PalinzADummy

      Like you, I once found him … acceptable. Too bland to dislike, anyway. Now I just abhor him. He's like some fucking Shapeshifter alien. You never know if he's got a tentacle up your arsehole, or what.

    5. RavenRant

      The new 'Republican Reality' is that W was too liberal. Mitt is running far to the right of Bush, just as W was to the right of Reagan and Bush Daddy.

  5. Gainsbourg69

    Huntsman should be president due to his genetics. His daughters are all smoking hot. Even the chunky one.

    1. BarackMyWorld

      The narrative seems to be he's running for the 2016 nomination. Hopefully, the daughters age well in the next few years.

    2. ElPinchePutoPulgo

      As usual, I'll take the chunky one. It's Red Lobster date, then she puts the lotion in the basket.

        1. PalinzADummy

          I know you'll forgive me, ntD, but I'm probly not gonna reply to you no moah. I can't look at that ferret-faced visage without thinking Teh Bad Thots. Sorry, hon. NUTPUNCH!!

    3. GregComlish

      You'd have better chance of banging Huntsman's daughters if he isn't picked as the nominee.

      Also, I'd like to think the hot one has, like, sexy-ass magic Mormon thong panties with encrusted rhinestones right above her Jesus-spot.

      1. SorosBot

        Am I the only heterosexual man in the world that doesn't find thongs sexy, but prefers regular old panties?

        1. PalinzADummy

          I was gonna say "No," until I saw the H-word. Hmph.

          Ex-colleague used to call them "butt floss." I wouldn't fuck anybody who habitually wears thongs — they're a great way to move bacteria from the anus to the vagina, and I like to keep those two Portals To Heaven separate, if you get my drift.

          1. Barb

            No, you nailed it. When used appropriately it is a beautiful thing. "(insert word here) libel" has GOT TO GO!

  6. C_R_Eature

    Urgh, there's Santorum spewing up on my Teevee screen. Must. Not. Hurl.

    Ahhh – now its GINGRICH! SPEAKING HORRIBLE WORDS! *stomach heaves* *Brain shorts out*

    1. Dudleydidwrong

      More like dueling flatulence. I prefer the one in Blazing Saddles, however, because it has more class than these two upfarts.

  7. mrblifil

    Paul's party has to be the bomb! I heard he danced with a very special and antique lampshade on his head he had flown in all the way from Poland.

        1. Barb

          I thought you were pulling my leg there. Donner, do you think he's going to go apeshit on Mitt now with attack ads and such?

          1. Donner, Party of 1

            I sure as hell hope so. I specifically want to see this ad run over and over. Nothing will make me happier than to taunt my christian conservative friends for having to vote for a candidate that has done more to advance abortion rights than any other major candidate for President on either side EVER.

          2. SorosBot

            Newtie really, really seems to hate Mittens; it's like he's hitting the Republican Party self-destruct button, and I for one couldn't be happier.

          3. Barb

            If Newt were leading he would ask everyone to drop out of the race for the "sake of the party" Maybe someone should tell him that the GOP is in the hospital with cancer and then he will dump the campaign.

  8. Negropolis

    WhI wouldn't give to hear my president, right now. It's like he's been holed up in the White House in hibernation.

      1. Negropolis

        And, that twould be a total mistake. If I've learned nothing else about incumbency in politics it's the folks that always go by the "let them destroy themselves" strategy almost always lose. Mitt has been casting vile aspersions against the president for months on end, now, with very little pushback from the president's surrogates. They need to get on it before this lying bullshit sinks in, because it will, especially against a president a lot of non-political (white) folks don't particularly connect with on a personal level. He can't leave them alone by themselves for too long, or base tribalism sets in.

        He doesn't need to be out there with opinions on the race, but his surrogates should be out in force every primary night on TV giving rebuttals and critiques of the results. Honestly, where the hell is Biden?

          1. PalinzADummy

            I understand why he's played it cautious so far. Look at how obstructive these Republipigs have been. If he'd started out with all the soshulismz, there would have been riots and blood and civil war, methinks. Now, three years out, the Repigs have screamed themselves hoarse and look like total fuckwits, Obama looks like the reasonable entity in the room, and things are turning around. People are beginning to realize that maybe it's not so OK to call the Prez racist names and scream bullshit about how much HE hates white people, when it's pretty fucking obvious that white Republicans hate the fuck out of him, and he's been dealing with them like a patient and reasonable adult.

            I'm hoping that he pulls all the stops out in his second term. (Plz deity in whom I do not bleev).

        1. Gainsbourg69

          I'd at least wait until they get to Florida. The reality in Florida is that we have a teabagger governor who is polling in the twenties and is a corporate goon just like Mittens. We're also a majority blue state.

          1. mourningnmerica

            It's me, again, the guy you just called a cunt. I see that you just referred to Mittens as a corporate goon. And of course, he is. But the maddening part is that you don't see that Obama is also. Now understand something. I am a liberal Democrat. Always have been. But Jesus man, do you not keep up on the news? At what point do you stop cheerleading for Barry? Did you just decide he's your guy regardless of what he actually….. does? He is as big a corporate lackey as has ever been in the White House. Did you not see what happened with MF Global, and how Barry is protecting his favorite fundraiser, Jon Corzine? And the Defense Bill? And his 100% faithful service to Goldman Sachs?

          2. Dudleydidwrong

            And your alternative is…? There is no deus ex machina going to pulley down from the ceiling to rescue this lint trap. The reality is an election will be held in November and it'll be Barry vs one (or more) of these hemorrhoid Republicans. The phone to Ghostbusters is broken, so who'ya gonna call?

        2. mourningnmerica

          Very coherent post. Your last paragraph in particular, is right on. The surrogates should be out in force.

          But….. and I suppose I should probably resist my urge to respond to your post at all…. but you, talking about base tribalism. That's rich.

          Sorry, I just couldn't resist. In view of the last couple of giant shits that he just took on democracy in the last couple of weeks, Barack Obama cheerleaders are just something I simply can't abide without comment.

  9. BarackMyWorld

    Gingrich just blamed the Washington press for not inventing his energy policy for him.

    Wow, this guy hates the press.

  10. C_R_Eature


    Mute button + Zappa's "Broken Hearts and for Assholes". Loud.

    "…'cos you're an Asshole, you're an Asshole (that's right!), you're an Asshole (yes, yes!) " etc.

    1. Dr Ozark Hellbender

      But don't fool yerself Newt,
      It's lookin' at you
      Don't fool yerself Newt,
      It's winkin'at you
      Don't fool yerself Newt,
      It's blinkin' at you
      That's why I say

      Rammit, rammit, rammit up yer poopchute!
      Rammit, rammit, rammit up yer poopchute!
      Rammit, rammit, rammit up yer poopchute!
      Rammit, rammit, rammit up yer poopchute!

      1. C_R_Eature

        You're very sick. I really admire that in a person.

        I'll have nightmares tonight, but I'm so drunk I won't care.

  11. DustBowlBlues

    First Newt, now Santorum. Isn't it sweetly ironic when these Republictard dicks complain about being outspent?

    1. Gainsbourg69

      No one's stopping them from coming out against citizen united. They've each had significant time in the limelight.

        1. MosesInvests

          And the wide, staring eyes, also, too. (did I get that right? I haven't been commenting here long)

  12. chascates

    Mitt is it. Not Reagan II, not the Southern Jesus, not the Founding Tea Partier, but the most electable candidate out of a gaggle of wannabes. And some will vote for him and some will stay home but Obama will win and the wails will continue. And little will change and the rancor will continue and grow and the right will plan and plot for 2016.
    And the rich will get richer and, well, you know.

    1. Dudleydidwrong

      "And little will change and the rancor will continue and grow and the right will plan and plot for 2016." Yes. The Left will try to plan and plot but they're not very good at that, as I see it. There could be room for an honest, viable third party in 2016, because there will come a time, hopefully by then, when that "rich getting richer" thing begins to come to a festering head.

      ]Just a little left in the Jack Daniels bottle so it is getting to be nite-nite time–if the damn room will just hold still…

    1. BaldarTFlagass

      That's my dad's idea of a "discussion" about an "issue." "If your opinion differs from mine, you are a stupid fucking asshole."

  13. Harry_S_Truman

    When Santorum, Gingrich and Perry combine for less votes than Ron Paul, and your name is Santorum, Gingrich or Perry, it's time to reassess your campaign's chances.

  14. DustBowlBlues

    Quick–Remind Newt that every time a Republitard complains about a Democratic opponent having oodles more money, another angel turns blue.

      1. SorosBot

        Am I the only one who always reads Downton Abbey's title as "Downtown Abbey", then wonders what the fuck a Downton is?

        1. RavenRant

          If I'm not mistaken, your typecasting includes the char, the part-time prostitute, and the daring, headstrong, French resistance fighter/chanteuse with a tragic weakness for German officer/interrogators with smart uniforms and *perhaps* a ceremonial riding crop.

      2. mourningnmerica

        The first episode of season two was killer. And I have it on good authority that 50% of the viewers tune in simply so they can masturbate to Laura Linney in the introduction (looks around nervously).

  15. Radiotherapy

    Fuck you Newt. He just fucking flat out lies. "Obama raised taxes." Really. I don't call them the Bush/Obama tax cuts for nothing. And I can't believe that Callista is only 45 years old. She doesn't look a day under 60.

    1. SorosBot

      What's the point in marrying a woman over twenty years younger than you when she looks like she's your age, anyway?

      1. fuflans

        apparently mr. fuflans was on the hill at the same time callista was (though he's a few years younger than she is). but EVERYTIME i see her, i look at him and am shocked all over again.

        he looks to be an entirely different generation than she is. and not an older generation.

        i guess that's the price of whore diamonds.

        1. Jukesgrrl

          I just watch her in utter amazement that the piece of hair that curls back on the left side of her head never droops. If I put three cans of hairspray on a wig it wouldn't do that. Superglue?

      2. DrOzarkZ.Hellbender

        I don't have any facts to back this up, but rumor has it that none of the vehicles in the Gingrich garage has a single bit of chrome left on the trailer hitch.

        If you know what I mean.

        And I think you do.

  16. Serfville

    I needed intellectual stimulation so I chose Celebrity Wife Swap over Paul's killing sick people with no health insurance to save 1 dime, libertarian rabid spit

  17. Guppy

    I'm sure glad we had Iowa and New Hampshire to winnow the field down for the other 48 states! This is the advantage of having a primary system approved by God and Jesus!

  18. Harry_S_Truman

    Huntsman announces that his campaign will continue on to South Carolina . . .

    . . . as soon as someone tells him where it is.

  19. user-of-owls

    So, Mitt has won a massive victory that will profoundly shape the upcoming electoral contest, which in turn will perhaps determine the course of history in our republic.

    Because around 60,000 cranky white people in a state with an economy that relies on busloads of overweight suburbanites looking out the window at tree leaves and contributes 0.42% to the US GDP.


    1. C_R_Eature

      SSSSH! Stop questioning the Conventional Wisdom. You'll compromise the careers of several very wealthy media personalities!

      What is wrong with you?

    2. chascates

      Fortunately we won't have to deal with these people for another 4 years. At least Iowa supplies necessary farm and industrial products. New Hampshire is known mainly for granite and quaint, old-fashioned idiocy.

      1. Dashboard Buddha

        As a worker bee in NH, I can, with confidence, state that at least in the southern part of the state, most of the people there work at high-tech (ie government funded) firms in Mass…and then come home to live in the libertarian utopia that is Nashua.

        it's pretty pathetic really.

    3. user-of-owls

      Geez, guys.

      I fully planned to dynamite Mt. Rushmore, but I thought I would get a little more edgy and go with this.

      Cut me some slack already.

        1. Dr Ozark Hellbender

          Slackers, but not cutters.

          OK, except maybe that one guy who thinks that one of the Huntsman daughters is "chunky." Him, I worry about.

        2. user-of-owls

          Really, where's the ambition? Where's the fire in the belly?

          (Don't tell anybody, but between you and me, I'm thinking about asking why we have to have elections on a Tuesday. But I'm afraid that's just "too much", ya know?)

          1. not that Dewey

            It has to be on a Tuesday — Wolf Bilitzer has his entire week very carefully mapped out. Can you imagine what kind of bedlam would ensue if an election were held on a Friday afternoon?

  20. Donner, Party of 1

    Huntsman said when he looks at America from 10000 miles, all he sees are bold colors. The only reason he could be sharing a peyote experience is to try and capture some of the Paul supporters.

  21. SorosBot

    So one of the local PBS station's digital sub-stations is showing what appears to be an English-language news channel for France, and the anchor is this absolutely gorgeous English redhead; she may be an even more attractive British redhead than Amy Pond, I think I'm in love.

    1. chascates

      Shit, all of my local PBS digital feeds are either Spanish-language, old Bob Ross shows, or kiddie shows. But I admit I can't get Ruff Ruffman's (Fetch!) scat-singing theme out of my head!

  22. BarackMyWorld

    Two words that embody my hopes and desires for this race: BROKERED CONVENTION.

    Hey, I can dream…

    1. Banelm

      Aint that the truth! This could well be the most epic and publicly corrupt primary in modern times. The sheer awfulness of it could split the Republicans into Libertarian and Teabaggy factions… But I'm getting ahead of myself. But not by much!

    1. Data Exactly

      Sounds like an opportunity to urinate on the Romneys. We'd better take this opportunity while we have it!

  23. user-of-owls

    There are 223 people in New Hampshire who voted for Michelle Bachmann. I'm not going to look it up, but I sincerely hope there are 223 beds open in mental health care facilities in the Granite State.

          1. PalinzADummy

            I just got back from seeing the surgeon and being tortured by the physical therapist and I'm sitting here vaping a bowl, and this is just rocking my brain right out, dood.


            Edited to add: Bonus weirdness: Trying to read the Portuguese lyrics while listening to the English version.

      1. poncho_pilot

        i'm waiting for Santorum to weigh in. we know how he feels about man-on-dog but what about dog-on-car?

  24. PalinzADummy

    Five years, $50 million, and he gets seven whole votes more in Iowa and a whopping (not) slightly over one-third in fucking NH where his "charming little summer cottage" is located. And he's celebrating.

    1. chascates

      This is how the Mormons do things. They seem to be moderate and accommodating until they can bring in their saints and prophets and underwear and such.

      1. PalinzADummy

        I don't like organized religion, but I have many friends who are religious, and I don't have a problem with them believing whatever they want, so long as they don't, you know, try to shove it down my throat, or anything.

        But the Mormons *really* give me the creeps. They desire secular power to a far greater extent than most other religious loonies, it seems, with their businesses and factories and required tithing and the forced labour of their women and children and their incredible control over nearly every aspect of their adherents' lives, down to their fucking underwear, yaknow?

        1. Jukesgrrl

          I have a couple of gay friends who were raised in Mormon families and they were treated abominably. That was enough for me. But you make a good point about the secular power. It's like they're taking over the Sudetenland.

  25. FROTHY

    OK, so I want to know why NOBODY has yet brought up the fact that Willard "Mitt" Romney is a Bishop of his church? Would we let the Pope or one of his cardinals run for this job? How about a mullah? If not, why not?

    1. FakaktaSouth

      The media isn't gonna delve in to that, cause he's their "normal' guy. I promise you, the Mormon thing (much less Mitt's positions of power within) is a-coming. You know so so so much more about the R candidates than any of their basic random supporters, I promise you. These poor folks are in for a ruuuude awakening when it they finally do get the message. The types of, um, ladies around here who are best friends with Jesus, the assholes who were among the surging (my fave word these days) 20million Rove-ian anti-gays WILL NOT VOTE for a Mormon, once they KNOW WHAT IT IS. You think that they would already, just by walking around and breathing, but remember who you are talking about. It is one of the most frustrating things about talking TO one. But this type I am talking about, and they are a HUGE contigency, react with "I don't like that" – all feeling, and their feelings on Mitt's beliefs on Jesus in Missouri will be as KNEE JERK as the rest they have, and NOPE. No vote for you Mitt Romney. I KNOW these people.

      1. ttommyunger

        'Course, they won't vote for the black guy; but they will stay home, which is just as good as far as I'm concerned.

        1. FakaktaSouth

          Oh absolutely not. That is another interesting part, cause when they ARE excited to be voters, it's the most important thing ever, but staying home because you're too dumb to understand actual self interest is also valiant. They are a very self satisfied lot.

          1. ttommyunger

            Single-issue voters will always be with us; I'm one myself: I will vote against the Republican every fucking time.

      2. PalinzADummy

        From your lips straight to the ears of any entity with the power to Make It SO! I don't want Mittens doing his fish dance in the Oval Office. It's bad enough trying to keep track of his spinning out here without the bully pulpit.

        1. FakaktaSouth

          Mostly, like I've told ya before, I've been a blue eyed blonde white female all my life and that plays pretty well down here. Most "conservative" people who know me think I'm smart and know I read so they don't start shit with me cause they don't want to try and debate me, and that makes it pretty easy on a personal level. My (even extended) family is majority non-racist, non-ignorant, non-repub, non-asshole so I wasn't raised by fucktards, and I really do like getting to feel smart and superior, no matter how pathetically low the bar.
          Seriously, I don't know man, if the hubs found a job like he has here ANYwhere else (ie supporting my dumbass and our 3 kids pretty well) we'd be out, easy peasy. But this is where our whole lives (and all our "contacts") are…but ONE DAY baby, I'm gonna run away and then I'LL get to look down on some folks for where they live, I just KNOW it!

      3. Jukesgrrl

        They also have NO IDEA what a leveraged buyout is. I've explained it to several people and when they understood they were horrified. But they just hear the words and have never tried to figure out what it means. It's just more Wall Street gobbletygook, which they think they have to accept as "the way things work."

        1. PalinzADummy

          Frankly? I think people seize up, mentally, when they hear unfamiliar words and concepts. We get used to going over and over the same little ruts in our minds, and unless we force ourselves to remain awake and alert, we turn into comfortable little bots ourselves, with our unthinking little subroutines for Getting Things Done. Most people hear "leveraged buyout" and their first thought is "complicated math/money stuff that I will never understand — skip" and they just don't think about it anymore.

          I think Robert Anton Wilson called it "seeing the fnords."

      4. Z Crudmonger

        Hi, lurker here, but also a former mormon, once a missionary to an exotic locale converting young ladies for the mormon Jeebus. Anyway, since Mitt is getting the attention, let me toss the particulars ya'all's way. Mormon bishops are a dime a dozen, generally selected from the local congregation to act as the ecclesiastical leader for 4-5 year shifts. It's no pay, volunteer and consists of hearing confessions, talking often during Sunday services etc. They are not trained ministers in that most have little social service skills, aside from what they learned from management meetings as most who are appointed are businessmen who have decent McMansions.

        Mitt isn't a bishop any longer, it's not possible to be a bishop and run for president, because he would need to be servicing his flock to do it properly. Likely he has been one before, maybe more than once. Mormons use terms like "released from his postion." Go figure. Anyways, it's akin to being a scoutmaster, but more praying and tying heads into knots with absurd doctrines instead of rope. One doesn't need to attend higher education type seminary or have any background in marriage counseling or mental therapy to be a bishop, but often that is what they do. There's a lot more, but Mittens isn't a bishop anymore, but he is a High Priest (capitalized as the Mo's do) which is about as high as one gets in the evangelical ranks until one makes the General Authority level (about level 80 if you play Diablo ii). Essentially he has status, but not in use at this moment.

        Hope that helps. Snark on.

    2. flamingpdog

      I think my daughter the feminist Mormon would tell you that bishops in the Mormon Church are more like CEOs than Popes or Cardinals.

      1. PalinzADummy

        I find it interesting that a feminist could *be* a Mormon. According to Mormon doctrine, the only way a woman can ever attain the pinnacle of spiritual achievement is through marriage to a man who holds a Temple Recommend (i.e., behaves exactly as his fellows think he should). Women are not entitled to salvation or grace or spiritual achievement in any shape or form, to the best of my knowledge. But if you have information to the contrary, please let me know. I'm always happy to learn something new.

          1. Guppy

            To quoth the About page:

            "Religion Dispatches is a daily online magazine that publishes a mix of expert opinion, in-depth reporting, and provocative updates from the intersection of religion, politics and culture."

        1. sunmusing

          I was raised in the Re-Organized Church, and wow……just how the Elders talked about Brigham Young, and the "split" right after the jail incident. I can't remember it all because I tried really, really hard to bury those memories.

          1. PalinzADummy

            They must not have been very pleasant memories. I'm sorry.

            I'll admit that although I've read a few tracts from Mormon missionaries and a couple of pop lit type books on Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the early years of the Mormons, I don't know too much more than that and the facts found in Under The Banner of Heaven. I suppose it's one more thing to familiarize myself with. Feel free to let me know if you think I should read anything in particular. Thanks.

          2. sunmusing

            It's something a sane person would avoid. Mom is an Elder in this church, dad was a non practicing catholic. It may explain why I'm so fucked up.

          3. PalinzADummy

            Dood, you are NOT fucked up, or no more so than the rest of us. None of us is walking around with sunshine beaming out of our arseholes. We're flawed, often obnoxious, and mostly crazy people who are all just lucky to have found this terrific place to connect.

            I spent some time (verbally) beating the shit out a truly fucked up person today — a LaRouche myrmidon who had the gall to call me an English fascist to my face. You are SO not fucked up.

        2. flamingpdog

          Well, she's not at all happy about the woman part of a being a Mormon. She joined up about 11 years ago after she had been through a very traumatic teenagehood, and wanted something to hold on to. She told me recently she was most attracted by the fact that the LDS Church doesn't have ministers. She's very intelligent (no brag, just fact) and independent and doesn't like any spiritual leader telling her what to do, even though she considers herself very spiritual. Last time I talked to her, she said she was thinking about going pagan or some eastern religion, LOL.

          But there are Mormon feminist web sites – she posts links to them on Facebook, prolly just to irritate the Mormon in-laws. Her husband was born and raised Mormon, but he's not the stereotypical Mormon dude, either. He's not nearly as Liberal as my daughter, but when my youngest son came outta the closet last year, he had no problem with it.

          Now back to snarking!

          1. PalinzADummy

            Thanks for the info. I'll keep an eye out for those Mormon feminists. I've been to a site called The Mormon Curtain, but it would seem the people who own that sight are apostates. (Hugs the pdog)

      2. RavenRant

        With all due respect, your daughter, the 'feminist Mormon', needs to understand that her official status as a female Mormon is somewhere between a head of livestock and a household appliance, valuable but unquestionably subhuman.

        I was raised Catholic. I was deeply devout and religious. The instant I understood that my religion officially considered me a subhuman, I was done.

        My best wishes for your daughter.

    3. BarackMyWorld

      I'm not comfortable attacking someone's religion, especially with someone who hasn't put his religious views front and center the way Santorum or Perry have.

      1. FakaktaSouth

        I can respect that. I honestly believe, based on everything he has done prior, that Mitt knows his particular religion is a liability with his particular focus group, or he WOULD be using it for personal gain as well. I can't give the man who will literally say ANYthing to get elected enough credit to think it is respect for his own religion that keeps him from flogging the masses with it.

      2. PalinzADummy

        Good point. And I actually went and looked up something Mitt said about his religion recently, and it upped my respect for him a couple of points. He basically said that people think he ought to repudiate his religion or declare himself free of its influence, and that he cannot do that. Since that is what will ultimately sink him, I believe, it was pretty impressive of him to have said this.

        1. Biff

          For some reason I'm having an impossible time of linking to a George Foote quote, so I'll just spell it out:
          "It will yet be the proud boast of women that they never contributed a line to the Bible."

    4. cavs

      I am with you guys- it FLOORS me that not one of them is using this against him!!! And it will indeed sink him, so go Mitt! you just about gotten as far as your money can buy.

    5. Negropolis

      Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think his position is anywhere close to Pope or cardinal or archbishop, and probably not even a regular ole catholic bishop. To me, the only reason to ever question high-ranking religious officials on their religion interested in political offices is if the religion in question is powerful or has sway above and beyond the national level, and then only particularly if they are running on a religious platform specific to that religion.

      Romney both angers and scares me, but not because of his religion, really. If anything he angers and scares me because he seems to have no kind of core despite being a part of a rather fervent, fundamentalist religion. His ability to compartmentalize his life to the degree that he does seems almost pathological.

      1. PalinzADummy

        I don't know what differences, if any, there are between Catholic and Mormon bishops, but it's a matter of record that Willard is a Bishop of his church. My point here is that permitting a religious leader to run for this particular office makes me extremely uncomfortable. If he wins, what is to prevent an officeholder of any *other* religion from running for the position? The "no religious test for office" clause of the Constitution does not cover the possibility that the leader or an officeholder of a religious sect should seek power over a Constitutionally supposedly secular nation. Kennedy assured a concerned nation that his first allegiance would always be to country over church. Romney is making no such assurances. Can the adherent of a religion that proposes to dictate its faithful's undergarments be trusted to place the interests of the secular state over the interests of his religion?

        1. Negropolis

          I can say that I tend to hold a bias against religious leaders running for high office, but did we get twisted in knots when the ordained reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton ran for the presidency? Did we ask them to pledge to uphold the Constitution over their religious texts?

          I'm not a Christian; I'm not much of anything, really, but that Romney is a non-lay congregant (mid-level leader maybe?) of his church/temple doesn't particularly bother me anymore than the other examples I used.

          EDIT: looked up his history and he was, indeed, a ward bishop and then a stake president in the early 90's, but is no longer either. And, a stake president is, indeed, equivalent to a bishop, and a ward bishop is the equivalent of a parish priest. His father was also a stake president of the Detroit Stake during his tenure as governor, though, I may be wrong about the timing.

          1. PalinzADummy

            Excellent point. It's always such a delight talking to you, especially when you call me on my errors. I shall have to think about this some more. But the first thought that comes to mind is that we SHOULD have been concerned when other religious leaders ran for office. Nevertheless, I'll think on it. Thank you.

          2. Negropolis

            That's all I'd ever ask. I'm still not particularly sure what if I should be more worried, but I can't find the fear I would have if a Catholic archbishop ran for the presidency simply because Mormonism is still very much a persecuted and thus contained religion.

          3. PalinzADummy

            Where is Mormonism persecuted? I understood it was a wealthy and powerful church and that it pretty much owns the entire state of Utah. As always, I'm open to information.

      2. Biff

        A Mormon bishop is about equal to a parish priest. They use different terminology, like ward, stake, and such, some units have a president, others a bishop, all worthy male members (heh) are priests, some higher than others, and all women are cum dumpsters.

        1. PalinzADummy

          Have I told you lately that I really do love you? You're so vile.

          "Cum dumpsters." I have this overwhelming urge to rush out and get bumperstickers printed saying

          All women are cum dumpsters. — Bishop Willard "Mitt" Romney

          and stick 'em all over people's cars, but I think Republicans might be an extinct species in my town. DAMN it.

          1. Biff

            I live in a sea of red, with a fringe of Paultards. Count yourself as one of the lucky ones.
            And don't forget this quote from George W. Foote:

            It will yet be the proud boast of women that they never contributed a line to the Bible.

            It can also apply to the Book of Mormon.

          2. PalinzADummy

            Interesting quote. I had to go look up Foote, of course, of whom I know nothing. How did you come to discover this secular thinker?

            Believe me, I do consider myself very lucky indeed to be living where I am. Very, very lucky.

          3. PalinzADummy

            Doesn't explain anything, Birthday Boy. How did you discover this writer? He doesn't seem to have published a great deal, either.

            So, 13th? Or 17th? Because time's running out here.

    6. KeepFnThatChicken

      I was reading Fakaka's post, and I believe that 2012 will be a great year for Republicans to finally do an objective introspection of their belief systems, now that they must contend with two non-Christian small-government, one-percenter candidates that must compete against the incumbent atheist muslin. They may just have to shake off their non-sensical attachment to their belief systems for the first time. This could very well be the new Enlightenment!


  26. BarackMyWorld

    Live edition of "Hardball," as Chris Matthews slowly inches closer to having an on-air meltdown.

  27. SorosBot

    Meanwhile, Nigeria is apparently on the brink of civil war, and I only know about it because I'm watching news made for the foreigns. Man, I love our jingoistic American news media, where only things that impact America are important.

    I mean, it's not like it's the largest and most important country on its continent or anything.

    1. Negropolis

      Oh, trust me, when the American media finds out that the fighting is split mostly among religious lines (Christian vs. Muslim), we'll hear about nothing else but Nigeria.

      1. SorosBot

        Nigeria produces a lot of oil; so I think we will eventually hear about it. But only because of the oil interests.

    2. MissTaken

      Now that I have no cable or satellite, I watch loads of Al Jazeera. It's so much more informative than anything us Americans put out.

      1. SorosBot

        Fuck, I've learned a lot more about what's going on in the world tonight by watching news made by British expatriots living in France than I ever could have watching American news made for Americans.

      2. KeepFnThatChicken

        I have been trying to talk my wife into watching TV on the web, and telling Dish network to F.O. But she's intransigent, so we're still spending money on that turd product.

        What else do you "watch" online other than the Turrist Channel? I stream MSNBC for news/opine and Netflix for entertainment.

        1. MissTaken

          I got Apple TV and stream Netflix into it. Otherwise I'll mirror my ipad to the apple tv with airplay and can watch whatever is online. Last night when I heard enough GOP bullshit I watched Downton Abbey through the PBS app.

          1. imissopus

            Hey hey, that sounds sciency. Don't you know that God Himself separated the land mass into so white European Christians would have two continents full of dark-hued savages to convert? It was a test, I tells ya.

          2. DrOzarkZ.Hellbender

            Some of the Young Earth Creationists who feel compelled, for some reason, to acknowledge at least PARTS of reality have made the claim that the primordial supercontinent actually did exist (so it was easier for all the animals to get to the Ark!) and then the continents all moved apart during the Flood.

            No, don't try to explain that the friction of continents zipping around the globe during the course of a few months would boil away the oceans and cook Noah…. They're interested only in Godly science.

  28. real_dc_native

    No matter who 'won' this we lose. There isn't a single Repugnantlican candidate that doesn't make me want to puke.

  29. ttommyunger

    This is the most amusing set of primaries in my 50 years of political awareness. Amusing in a cynical freak show sort of way, I mean.

      1. flamingpdog

        Oh everybody likes a multi-car pile-up on the freeway. Even better when all the cars are clown cars.

  30. owhatever

    Dial back your IQs, freeple, we'uns agoin' down yonder to South Carolina. That was where the John McCain has a black child whisper campaign set the course of the Republican Party for the next half-century.

  31. Barb

    Santorum has announced that he's going to South Carolina. Looks like someone is trying to sell some sweater vests before he oozes out in shame.

    1. flamingpdog

      Sweater vests in South Carolina? I know some dolphins in Florida he could sell some bicycles to.

    1. BarackMyWorld

      I still love the part where he attacks the press for not coming up with his energy policy on their own because they're from "Washington."

    1. Jukesgrrl

      But I'm kind of looking forward to his casino buddy spending $5 million on ads in South Carolina. It might keep a couple of citizens from having to do "volunteer" work.

  32. mourningnmerica

    I was encouraged by Governor Perry's strong showing.

    Christ, if Dahmer had been on the ballot, more than 0.7% of the voters would have mistaken his name for Dannon, and more people than that would have voted for him, thinking he was yogurt.

  33. ShaveTheWhales

    It looks like the Republican primaries, of all things, are going to exacerbate the "inherent hostility" between the wings of the Wonkette Party. See the hostility inherent in the system!!!

    Kidding aside, it does seem to me that the opinions regarding President Obama, of those Wonketeers who express opinions on the subject, fall broadly into two camps:

    (1) He's the best Democratic President since FDR, it's remarkable that he's accomplished as much as he has in the face of a tanked economy and a rabid Republican opposition, and we should be restrained about criticizing him.

    (2) He's essentially a centrist (corporatist) Democrat (like, e.g., the Clintons), he's given up prematurely on many opportunities because he's confrontation-averse, and criticism is supposed to be helpful.

    It should be noted that most of the folks who tend towards option (2) — including me — still feel that the President is a far better choice than any of the participants in the current Republican clown show. As I’ve written a number of times, I voted for President Obama, and I continue to be completely happy that I did so.

    I very much enjoy this blog, and the comments, and the snark. It bothers me to see a thread go off into a pissing contest among established commenters, especially since they probably have a lot in common. So here’s a couple of words of unsolicited advice.

    /* Ducks and covers head */

    To the folks who lean towards (1) – (Obama is fabulous). The actual accomplishments have been limited. The ACA was a step forward, but its ultimate passage was due more to Pelosi than to Obama. Its relatively crappy shape was due to the pre-Congressional deals that the Administration made. The DADT repeal was overdue, anyhow. The Prez could have made a whole lot more recess appointments; he allowed the senior administration to be leaderless in many areas for years. His approach to reining in the financial sector has been – I’m sorry – wimpy.

    To the folks who lean towards (2) – (Obama is a Clinton or worse). He encountered a level of obstruction that I certainly didn’t expect. The fact that he was blah seemed to inflame the opposition beyond anything in my memory (which goes back to the early 60s. An aside: I never expected to live to see a non-white President. I did think I had a 75% chance of seeing a female Prez, but a minority? – fuck me). The fact that he has managed to accomplish anything at all is actually quite remarkable. His SCOTUS nominees, while pretty middle-of-the-road, were VASTLY better than what we would have gotten from a Refucklican Prez.

    And, finally, who else have we got? (This is actually a bit of a worry for me, as in who the hell is gonna run against Jeb in 2016?). I’m a medium-flaming liberal. If you collected everybody to the left of me, I think you’d get 25-30% of the total USMerkin electorate. But a third of us would be in New York and California, and our Electoral College totals would be unimpressive. I do believe that the political balance in the US is moving in the left direction, but it’s a slow process. In the interim, we have to support the best available choice. FWIW, I prefer “best available” to “lesser evil”, because it suggests that we are inching forward. Old as I am, I like to think my kids will see some progress.

    1. PalinzADummy

      Bravo! Well said, indeed.

      As for "Who's gonna run against Jeb," I think Warren, if she gets in, would be an obvious contender. Feingold might make a good candidate, but he doesn't seem very enthusiastic about that type of political role any more. It's time for more young people, but with experience. All the older possible candidates are getting way too old to run again.

    2. RavenRant

      Obama did have unprecedented obstruction in the House and Senate. That is a fact.

      But many commenters here choose to ignore the fact that the president has absolute control of the executive branch, one of the three major branches of government. This includes the DOJ. It also includes the White House staff and advisors he chooses.

      The Obama administration has mounted an unprecedented attack on whistleblowers in every area of the military, civilian government, and industry. Meanwhile, there has not been a single indictment or even a sorry pretense of an investigation of any of the major players in the big banks or mortgage brokers for egregious securities fraud, mortgage fraud, predatory lending, forgery and perjury. (See robo-signing.)

      Nor has there been a single indictment or even a serious investigation of the ratings agencies that gave AAA ratings to securities composed entirely of subprime liar's loans. These securities were used to loot and destroy municipal funds and pension funds all over the country.

      In addition, not only have there been no prosecutions for war crimes or torture, which might have been politically treacherous, there has not been a single prosecution for war profiteering or defense contracting fraud, which would have been enormously popular. These companies (Dyncorp, Triple Canopy, Blackwater, KBR, etc.), are ripping off taxpayers while actively harming our troops and our national security objectives.

      I think everyone here agrees that any and every Republican would be vastly worse than our current president. But I'm not willing to be branded a traitor for refusing to buy into some fairly cheap, amateurish and transparent PR.

      BTW, the stereotypically liberal folks that got the most accommodation out of this administration were LGBT activists, and they got that response because they were relentlessly aggressive in pursuit of their goals, and they did not hesitate to confront and even embarrass the president to achieve those goals.

      Helpful Hint: You can support Obama's reelection without attacking and alienating people who would prefer a less criminal-corporatist, neo-feudal, national security police state status quo.

    3. MilwaukeeKent

      A very good crisis President is what he is.
      How much is his being a DLC centrist/Clintonite/Third Way corporatist a result of GOP headwinds and how much of it is in his own nature, that's a question for a second term. A GOP victory in November would be a good measure of our mean streak. We got our choice of "yuck".

    4. Chet Kincaid

      I don't participate in the pissing contests anymore for the most part, but your analysis doesn't include a handful of people who are NOT established commenters, but semi-anonymous trolls who only come out when there's an opportunity to pile on the President and put people off voting entirely. I am thrilled that they are getting their asses hammered, and that I don't have to do it.

      1. PalinzADummy

        I wasn't going to say nothin' about that till emotions had died down a bit. It's nice that some folks notice their trolling and pin their ears back periodically. But yeah, it must be tiring being nearly the sole troll-pinner for some while.

    5. hagajim

      the President is a far better choice than any of the participants in the current Republican clown show

      He is certainly a better choice because these people are fucking insane. However, I agree with you that Barry has prolly done as good a job as possible given the crap economy he was handed and now the idiots who think being a Congressman means doing nothing at all.

  34. mourningnmerica

    Is anyone else here worried that Newt will strap a bomb to his body and crash the next Romney event?

    1. glamourdammerung

      Is anyone else here worried that Newt will strap a bomb to his body and crash the next Romney event?

      Not really. But I do think checking for bombs under the Paultards tricorns might be prudent.

    2. ElPinchePutoPulgo

      Then the media finds him naked and crying in the middle of the debris and body parts saying "he made me do it" over and over.

    3. Guppy

      As if. He may pretend he's going to do it, but in reality he'll just end up crying into a 5 lb bag of M&M's.

  35. DemonicRage

    Obama has succeeded in his dastardly plan to transform the USA into a European-style welfare state, at least in New York. You can get croissants everywhere you go, even bodegas, with morning coffee. How Euro is that?

    1. Negropolis

      I will say, however, we may see an uptick in abstinence across the board if this sweater-vested Puritan with breeding hips keeps incessantly prattling on about it.

      This is why I love Lizz Winstead. I mean, "sweater-vested Puritan with breeding hips"? Could that be a more perfect description of that giant man-child?

      And Rick Perry, the poor dear.

      This Dollar Store version of George Bush…

      Come on; this is Grade A snark.

      On to Ron Paul, the libertarian in the race who believes that the government should totally get out of people's lives – as long as their lives don't involve sex. Then, the government should be all up in that shit.

      "All up in that shit." She's like a semi-automatic rifle of snark.

    1. DrOzarkZ.Hellbender

      Noticing that for the last 30 years the top 5% have made all the tax laws and business regulations. It's Freedom when they make the rules to benefit themselves, and Class Warfare to mention it, much less criticize it.

      Stop whining and push your masters cart!

  36. SorosBot

    OK, I am pleasantly surprised to not be hung over this morning. Also I hate people. On my way to work this morning, at a light I passed by a pair of asshole douchebags in a van who started just cold sexually harassing a random woman on a bike beside them, screaming out comments about her ass and how they want to fuck her. What the fucking fuck is wrong with people that they think that kind of shit is OK?

    1. jus_wonderin

      I switched to half-caf this morning. So, I think I am hungover. But, I feel your frustration. Sometimes my commute makes me dream of using my SUV as a weapon.

    2. Negropolis

      Reminds me of the time when I was probably about 16 or 17 when a van with a group of guys crossed three lanes just so they could roll up beside me while I was on my bike and yell "nigger!" before speeding off. lol I was so scared I didn't even have time to be angry. I thought they were going to jump out the side and jump me. So, yeah, dudes in vans can be dicks.

      1. natoslug

        You are a bitter disappointment, Negropolis. Having read many comments on other sites, I understand that as a blah teen, you must have been armed with at least one 9mm, if not an AK-47, and by "on my bike" you meant you were riding shotgun in a pimped-out Escalade with at least four other gang members. Why you didn't put a cap in their van-riding asses, yo and dog and all that, I cannot fathom. A bitter, bitter disappointment.

      2. PalinzADummy

        Poor N. I'll bet you're a skinny type, too. Because you know, these fucking fucks wouldn' dare yell that at some black man in an SUV who looks like he might be armed to the teeth. In fact, I'll bet these assholes openly lick the boots of any black athlete they come across, so.

        I've had people in trucks and vans comment on my PDA with my partner, as if it's any of their fucking business. One of them actually shot at me, once. Missed, obvs, but hell, middle of the afternoon, busy street, big city. Pretty damn nervy.

  37. KeepFnThatChicken

    The curley-haired kid over Mitt's left shoulder looks adopted. Or resembles the spawn of Donny Osmond.

    (Last night, I said something like this on Facebook, and one of my friends said that "the kids are off-limits." Yet I keep thinking, "Let's get DNA proof on the kid in question, because I could be safe on a technicality.")

    1. Negropolis

      Ha! He doesn't have a single "kid" under the age of 30, I believe. These aren't little kids. Hell, all but one of the Romney sons have families of their own. The nerve of the use of "the kids are off-limit" bullshit, as if the Romney boys aren't grown-ass men.

    2. Guppy

      Since it's been well over a century since we've had an unwed president, I'd say that the kids aren't just fair game but a requirement for the job.

    3. Barrelhse

      If the kids are going to be off-limits it might be better if they stopped putting themselves in the public eye by actively campaigning. If we have to listen to their shit they'll have to deal with ours. (rich little namby-pamby pussies- heh)

    1. SorosBot

      Pst; note the little PM at the top. But I am impressed that we've got 490 comments on only two pages; it's almost all replies.

      1. James Michael Curley

        Yes, I noticed but I thought it was a notation that Romney’s speech was affected by premenstrual stress.

  38. DahBoner

    The Republican party sure is trying hard to court hispanics.

    Last time, they had a guy born in Panama and a half-breed Alaskan cunt.

    Cmon! Is Alaska really part of U.S. America???

    This time, they like a Mexican.


  39. PalinzADummy

    I was going to say, I wonder why they haven't *already* put Mittens out on the kerb, and then I remembered what the size of their tithe from the Romney billions would amount to.

    1. natoslug

      They may not be quite as obvious about their pay to pray action as the Scientologists, but yeah, if you're rich enough, or a member of the right family, you have a different set of rules in the LDS church. And considering how many new converts fail to stick around to pay the bills, they really don't want to lose the wealthy base. Funny how what was once a rather socialist organization based on getting Joseph laid and making sure members didn't starve has turned into the current monstrosity. Maybe that's just the booze talking.

  40. SorosBot

    Yeah, that was it! The only other comparably good news I've seen on American TV has been from the BBC and Al Jazeera. Sigh.

  41. C_R_Eature

    Okay, it looks like Laura Bush has gotten into the Xanax and Chardonnay again. Don't encourage her, she'll pass out soon & George will have to hide the iPad.

Comments are closed.