Ron Paul dealt a quiet, but embarrassing, blow to Republican rival Mitt Romney this weekend, scoring an impressive delegate victory on the presumptive nominee’s home turf.

The Boston Globe reports today that Paul supporters filled more than half of the delegate slots at this weekend’s Massachusetts Republican district caucuses, edging out at least 16 Romney delegates for a spot at the Republican National Convention.

Paul’s wins aren’t likely to effect on Romney’s all-but-certain coronation as the Republican nominee. Romney won the Massachusetts Republican primary with 72% of the vote, so 38 of the state’s 41 RNC delegates are legally bound to vote for their former governor on the first ballot at the convention.

But the losses are an alarming indication that Romney’s campaign organization is still woefully underdeveloped, even in the state where he served as governor, and where his campaign headquarters are located. Romney had a full slate of 27 delegates for Saturday’s caucuses, and the losers included prominent Bay State Republicans, such as the Massachusetts House Minority Leader Bradley Jones, Jr., and former Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, according to the Globe.

The Paul and Romney campaigns did not reply to Business Insider’s requests for comment.

Massachusetts wasn’t the only state where Paul notched delegate victories this weekend. The campaign announced Sunday that Paul supporters will make up 74% of the delegates at the Louisiana GOP convention, putting Paul in prime position to pick up a sizable chunk of the state’s national convention delegates. Paul supporters also reportedly made inroads at Alaska’s GOP convention, overcoming staunch opposition from the state party Establishment. 

Even Paul’s campaign advisors admit that, despite the success of their convention strategy, it would be virtually impossible to deny Romney the 1,144-delegate majority he needs to win the nomination on the first ballot. But delegates also vote on the convention chair, the vice president, and the party platform, and Romney could have a hard time controlling those votes if the delegate team he brings to the convention is loyal to another coach.

Source: Business Insider.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

We have finally reached the final primary debate of the 2012 election cycle. There were three more scheduled but one was cancelled by MSNBC – who were hosting it, another was cancelled after three of the four candidates pulled out and the third one is highly questionable due to the fact that a dozen states or more will cast their votes before its date. The only way that that debate will still happen is if the race is still close between two candidates and they have the balls to go head-to-head. Considering that Romney will undoubtedly be one of those two men, consider at least one half of that equation to be nutless. No matter what happens after this, this is the final debate before Super Tuesday, which is the most important day in this primary race.

This debate was hosted by CNN, who does the best job in my honest opinion. The moderator for this round was John King, who I have given shit in the past. I wish CNN would hand the reigns over to Wolf Blitzer and just let these debates be his deal but I guess they feel the burning desire to keep pushing John King on us again and again. Why can’t they let Erin Burnett host one of these things? She’s pleasant to listen to, incredibly easy on the eyes and it would save us all from having to stare at a bunch of dickheads (Ron Paul excluded).

So here we are in Mesa, Arizona where everyone apparently loves Mitt Romney and hates Rick Santorum, as Ol’ Mittens got a huge ovation and Ricky Baby got dead silence, which in most cases is worse than boos. It’s funny how that went down, as CNN’s pre-game show spent a lot of time trying to convince their viewers that Santorum is a real contender for the presidency of the United States not just the presidency of the Southeastern Allegheny County Catholic Racquetball League. Whatever, the fact that homeboy is center stage is maddening enough, as it just proves the insanity of America, since enough of us have voted for this fiscally irresponsible fascist bastard regardless of the fact that he is a well-documented hypocrite and an incessantly whiney dork dick.

Now I’m going to just cover a few of the highlights of the debate, as this just played out like a rerun of a show that you’ve already seen nineteen times. There wasn’t much in the way of new material provided by the candidates. This was basically just a refresher in all the issues they have already talked to death over the last year. To be completely honest, I just couldn’t sit through this thing without being bored shitless at parts. Even my 750 ml bottle of 10 Cane rum wasn’t enough to keep me focused on the job at hand, that being the need to take extensive notes in order to write this very critique you are reading now. I apologize for my lack of interest but I also don’t want to bore you with the same superfluous details I’ve already covered multiple times.

So the first 8 minutes of this broadcast gives us no questions to the candidates. Instead, CNN decides to do the national anthem, which is a time waster. If that came off as offensive, get over it! They haven’t done the national anthem or the Pledge of Allegiance at most of these things, so why start now? Why not do it off camera before the debate, so we can just get down to quality time with the candidates at 8:01 instead of 8:09?

In addition, they wasted time going through the typical introduction spiel. If you don’t know who these guys are by now, you should probably just stay away from the voting booths. Ron Paul owned the intro section though by calling himself “The Defender of the Constitution!” and “The Champion of Liberty!” If anyone else said this, it would be a dick move but Paul ain’t lying, he knows that he is the only real candidate on that stage and everyone else is faking the funk. Santorum’s intro was dumb as hell as he just said some bullshit about our troubles being the Middle East. Romney said some garbage about restoring America, which is Ron Paul’s catchphrase by the way. Gingrich basically said, “Fuck the Saudis let’s make our own gas!” At least they all get to sit down during this debate; their legs must be tired after about two dozen of these two-bit shit shows.

So here we go, time’s been wasted but we finally get a question. Some old dude from the audience asks the candidates, “What are you going to do to bring down the debt?” CNN, already spending the hour before the show building up Ricky Baby, goes straight to him to kick things off. Santorum says that he has a plan to cut spending, taxes and all that other jazz. He gets the sheep to cheer regardless if his claims are true or not. He says that he will shrink the budget and then brags about how he has always fought spending. Okay, that is complete bullshit, as has been proven time and time again, not just by the writings of myself but through countless reports and studies done by watchdog groups and Mr. Santorum’s opponents throughout this long race. He calls for a time limit on all forms of welfare and then goes on to praise the Paul Ryan Plan. Man, Mr. Ryan gets just as much airplay these debates as the candidates themselves and Ronald Reagan.

Mitt Romney is asked if he sticks by his claims that Santorum is not a conservative. Mittens talks about Ricky Baby’s love for bacon a.k.a. pork. He also mentions that Santorum voted to raise the debt limit a whopping five times! Romney claims, that as a business man, he has lived a life full of balanced budgets. He goes on to explain that he will divide up all government programs and look at them line by line to determine if the benefit is worth the cost. He promises to send most of the programs back to the states and declares that government workers shouldn’t be making more than the taxpayers who pay them. Of course, starting by asking Mitt about his negative comments regarding Santorum was just to start a heated exchange between the two, which just allows them to monopolize the time per usual.

In fact, Santorum gets an obligatory response but makes himself look like a total moron with thin bitch skin. He whines about Mitt saying that the Massachusetts governor admitted that he too would have voted to raise the debt ceiling. He also says that he never raised taxes but Romney did in Massachusetts. He admits to voting for No Child Left Behind but said that he regrets the decision. Of course he does, now that he has been continually put on blast for it! Racquetball Rick then takes a cheap shot at Romney and says that he has adopted Occupy Wall Street rhetoric because he talked about raising taxes on the top one percent.

Mitt of course gets his obligatory response, as Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich sit off to the side battling each other in Words With Friends until John King acknowledges them. Romney more or less accuses Rick Santourm of being full of shit, as if that’s any sort of surprise. Romney reminds the people that Santorum was a pivotal part of a Congress that grew government exponentially. While this is seemingly valid, pretty much every Congress since the Woodrow Wilson era has grown government exponentially. As Mitt bashes Rick, the cheers get louder and louder. This was certainly a pro-Romney crowd; the Arizonans in attendance were like famine-afflicted great whites chomping at the piss-soaked boxer-briefs of Mr. Santorum.

Gingrich gets in the discussion and uses his time to boast about how, as Speaker of the House, he led the charge in bringing four consecutive balanced budgets to the table. He then makes a big deal about how this debate is on Washington’s birthday. I guess Washington is the new Reagan in Newtworld. He goes on a tangent about opening up federal land and offshore areas to bring forth more energy options. He then states that his policies will save America $500 billion per year. Sorry bro, Dr. Paul is going to cut a trillion dollars in year one and Gary Johnson is going to top that with $1.4 trillion! Newt needs to up the ante if he is going to live up to his honey badger persona.

John King finally gets to Ron Paul but just asks hom a question about Santorum. What the hell man, CNN really wants to give a lot of airplay to the GOP’s resident Catholic. Don’t get it twisted though, it’s not because they like him, it’s because they know he’s an embarrassment and has no chance at beating Obama, so they want to push him and get him over enough just to ensure that their liberal buddy gets re-elected. Anyway, King asks Paul about his attacks on Santorum, as one of his ads called him “a fake”. When asked why he ran the ads, Paul simply says that Santorum “..is a fake.” The crowd goes nuts, as Paul lands a killing stroke on the religio-fascist bag of weasel testicles. Santorum just sits there nervously with his dork dick smile and tries to cut in on Paul but is cut off by boos. Paul says that Santorum is a classic example of someone who does things in office that contradicts the rhetoric they used while campaigning. He calls Rick’s record “bad” and adds that when someone claims that they are going to be fiscally conservative when they never have been in the past, shows that they don’t have any credibility. The crowd explodes for Ron Paul.

Santorum responds by saying that there was some “study” done that compared him to other senators and that it ranked him as the most fiscally conservative. He even refers to himself as a “hero” that took on “tough issues”. He claims that he was a “leader” that took on “Social Security”. He then says that some other “study” ranked Ron Paul 145th as a “real conservative”. Is it just me or do these studies sound like complete bullshit? Did one of Ricky Baby’s kids do these studies for their 3rd grade political science project?

Waiting for the crowd to stop booing, Ron Paul responds to Santorum by saying that comparing yourself to other members of Congress is a cop out; Paul gets cheers. Ron Paul blasts Rick’s “studies” by reminding everyone in the room that he always votes for the least amount of spending and taxes. He then adds that conservatives have gotten to this point where they are quite pleased with wasting money over seas and that if they were actually real conservatives, they wouldn’t vote for things that perpetuate that madness.

Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum get into another bitch spat and this time it is over earmarks. Eventually, after a bunch of wasted time, Santorum diverts the attention to Ron Paul and essentially accuses him of being the king of earmarks. Paul explains,as he has in the past, that if his constituents are going to be robbed through taxation, he is going to fight to get their money back anyway that he can. He says that we need to vote against spending and we need to fix the corrupt earmark and taxation systems. In fact, in his own words, Dr. Paul says, “Getting rid of earmarks simply gives the executive branch 100 percent control over the funds. What we need to do is vote against the spending bills.”

The debate carries over to the subject of bailouts then contraception and then illegal immigration. None of it is all that interesting and most of it has been discussed to death. The only other real notable thing to come out of this debate is this quote from Rick Santorum, who was defending himself from attacks by Romney and Paul on his atrocious voting record:

While yes, I voted for a large appropriations bill that contained items I didnt like, I counteracted it by adding another program that I did like to it.

Holy Jesus on a Frisbee! This guy doesn’t just put his foot in his mouth, he eats his whole goddamned shoe and probably most of his foot! The best part about this whole debate is that Rick Santorum looked like absolute crap! He came in with all this fanfare and high hopes with the media on his side but in the end, he couldn’t bring it in primetime. This was the most watched debate on cable this year and my personal favorite punching bag of the GOP field got hit hard from both sides but ultimately proved to be his own worst enemy. Santorum burned under the bright lights and magnifying glasses like an ant on the sidewalk in the hot Mesa sun. If this debate wasn’t the nail in the Santorum coffin, then Americans really are as stupid as the rest of the world thinks we are.

Grading Scale:
Grade B+: Ron Paul
Grade C-: Mitt Romney
Grade D+: Newt Gingrich
Grade F-: Rick Santorum

And here’s a video of that soft thin skinned bitch Santorum shaking Paul’s hand like a f’n douchebag:

It’s going to be a while before things get back to normal for Judy Sanchez and her three-year-old daughter.

Last Thursday, a team of FBI agents swarmed her apartment building as part of a massive citywide drug and weapons gang raid.

Trouble is, Sanchez lives in apartment 2R.

The suspect they were after is in 2F.

At 6:04 last Thursday morning, just before Sanchez’ alarm was set to go off, she heard a pounding outside her second floor apartment.

“I just happened to glance over and saw this huge chainsaw ripping down the side of my door,” she explains. “And I was freaking out. I didn’t know what was going on.”

Within moments, the chainsaw had cut through most of her door, and someone on the FBI’s arrest team kicked the rest of it in.

“That’s when I heard the clicking of a gun and I heard ‘FBI, get down!’, so I laid right on down.

And they said get your dog, so I got her and at the same time I am laying in her urine because she did pee on herself at the same time.”

That dog is the family’s three-month-old pit bull puppy.

Sanchez says they left her on the floor for 35 minutes, with her daughter screaming for her mommy in the other room.

“I was told not to move, so I didn’t move,” she tells WBZ, out of fear that she’d be shot.

Eventually the feds figured out they were in the wrong spot and they arrested the suspect they were after in the next door apartment.

Sanchez can’t believe that a two-year long federal investigation ended at the wrong door.

“The looks on their faces when they knew they got the wrong door was priceless,” she recalls. “They looked at each other dumbfounded.”

Sanchez says another agent came by later that day to offer an apology, but it was one that Sanchez felt wasn’t quite genuine.

“For me it felt routine apology, it felt like just a regular, ‘I’m sorry for the inconvenience. Here’s the phone number for your landlord to get reimbursed for the door, have a good day.’

And that’s how I felt, like it was a smack in the face.”

Source: CBS Boston. Video at link.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

Introduction:

I don’t hate Mitt Romney but I am certainly not a fan, which should be obvious at this point. I do hate the goddamned media for giving him an unfair advantage over the other candidates but truthfully, that isn’t his fault. Romney isn’t the absolute worst presidential choice out there, which many of my colleagues and readers may disagree with vehemently, but he is still a progressive statist bastard that is hellbent on controlling the lives of all of us in an effort to keep the giant wheel of the establishment machine rolling. I have been nasty to the guy many times in my countless diatribes about the 2012 election but my distaste and malcontent has been for a very good reason. Point being, I know that Romney can’t save this country and I feel that this is painstakingly obvious even though I find myself completely befuddled over the fanfare and support that this guy gets, not just form the media – their support is understandable, but from the conservative voting public who are all pretty much in unison behind this guy’s idea of smaller government, less taxes and squashing the budding police state. This guy will not solve any of those problems. In fact, he will only magnify them and dig our giant pit of legislative bullshit deeper and deeper. Hell, the pit is practically bottomless at this point but electing Mitt Romney will only solidify that fact even further.

I’m certainly not saying that Obama is a better choice out of the two. Realistically, I don’t think there is much difference between one or the other. This is a prime example of there being just one big government party with two wings: one that wears blue shirts with donkeys on them and one that wears red shirts with elephants on them. The worst part about this is that most “conservatives” are following Romney, as well as Gingrich and Santorum, believing in the hypocritical rhetoric that they’ve got a small government guy on their side who will fight for them. Realistically, those who support these guys are ignorant in economics and foreign policy. It is incredibly unfortunate but as Ron Paul said in a recent debate, “Conservatives have lost their way.”

Now I can’t completely cover every negative thing on Romney’s record, as there is a lot, but I am going to talk about a few points. In the end, it is really your decision as to where you want to put your vote but you really need to think this through and ask yourself where you want to be in four years. Do you want to be climbing out of the hole or do you want to be yelling at the guys that are still digging and digging?

Smaller Government:

The first thing worth getting into is definitely the issue of Mitt claiming that he’ll work towards making government smaller. Mitt Romney, who has preached for this over the course of all these debates, has a really shitty record of practicing what he’s been preaching. In reality, Mitt has been feeding into the desires of the voter base and has been stringing them along with his version of the popular rhetoric of the day. The sad thing is that many of the people who support this douchenugget are taking all this bullshit at face value and not looking at reality. Truthfully, maybe Romney actually believes his empty words and his supporters might not be adept enough to see through the Orwellian doublespeak. Let me rundown his track record of big government bullshit by ripping the fucking band-aid off: exposing the man’s economic sores.

I could write a whole damn article about the monstrosity that is Romneycare but I won’t bore you or myself with the details that have already been recycled a million times and beaten into the ground with Thor’s hammer by every critic for several years now. I’m over the Romneycare issue personally. I don’t like it, I think it’s shit, it was the blueprint for what became Obamacare but it was done at the state level, not the federal level and most Bay Staters still approve of it, so that is their economic cross to bear.

One thing that many Romney supporters don’t know or just choose to ignore is the fact that he significantly raised taxes in Massachusetts while he was governor. While preaching fiscal conservatism and pimping himself out as friendly to business, Governor Romney increased the tax bill on businesses by $300 million! He and his cronies also approved hundreds of millions of dollars worth of higher fees and fines on businesses in just four years! Many business owners were incredibly dissatisfied with Romney as governor. Essentially, corporate taxes under Romney almost doubled in just his one term.

I guess the tax hikes were necessary though, as Romney drastically increased spending in Massachusetts. In 2006, Ol’ Mittens increased spending in just that year by 7.6 percent. In 2007, he increased spending again, this time all the way up to 10.2 percent. During just his four years in office, he increased state spending by a total of 20.7 percent! That’s a lot of debt thrown on the taxpayer but at least those hefty tax hikes on corporations absorbed some of the burden. Maybe this tax burden accounts for the fact that Mitt Romney managed the 47th ranked state, out of 50, in the realm of job creation. That brings me to my next point.

Romney has been touting his job creation success while working at Bain Capital. He proudly boasts about creating corporations like Staples, Sports Authority and Steel Dynamics, all of which have created hundreds of thousands of jobs. However, as governor, unemployment was a real problem in Massachusetts. Sure, he did great in the private sector and as Romney himself has said, “Jobs are created in the private sector.” However, all of his job creation skills didn’t translate to success when he reached office. So what makes the public think that this job magician’s magic wand will suddenly work this time? Yes he is a self-professed business master but he couldn’t tap into that while running Massachusetts so essentially his trial run at it was a failure. On the issue of Romney’s job creation woes, Boston Herald business reporter Bret Arends wrote:

During the four years Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, it had the second worst jobs record of any state in America…it wasn’t a regional issue. The rest of New England created nearly 200,000 jobs.

The question no one ever seems to ask Governor Romney is how many jobs were destroyed in an effort to build his monstrous corporations. Now I am not attacking him for building giant successful businesses, as that is the nature of the beast – good or bad. I am just trying to point out how skewed these sorts of statistical claims are because if you created say 300,000 jobs but your new businesses eliminated the jobs of say 250,000 people whose businesses you closed down through competition, well then you’ve only really created 50,000 jobs. This is a simple ballpark example but it should show you how some statistical claims can be made when you only tell one side of the story. Hell, government has been using these sorts of statistical tactics for years when releasing inaccurate numbers to sway public opinion for a candidate, a bill or whatever else they have needed public approval on.

Another issue that shows how non-small government this ass clown is, is the TARP bailouts. Mittens hates when people bring the subject up and has gone as far as lying and completely denying that he ever supported it but there is tons and tons of evidence that says otherwise. In fact, Romney was incredibly passionate about poorly run banks getting a massive taxpayer funded bonus for sucking at business. On CNN, a few years back during the bailouts, Romney said:

I think there is a need for economic stimulus. Americans have lost about $11 trillion dollars in net worth. That translates into about $400 billion dollars a year less spending that they’ll be doing, and that’s net of additional government programs like Medicaid and unemployment insurance. And government can help make that up in a very difficult time. And that’s one of the reasons why I think a stimulus program is needed.

Sounds like small government to me! So why would he be so pro-big bank? Well, let’s look at his top campaign contributors from a recent list. His top contributor is Goldman Sachs who gave $354,700. Next up is Credit Suisse Group at $195,250 and Morgan Stanley at $185,800. Every other contributor in the six figures is also in the banking industry. You’ve got HIG Capital, Barclays, Kirkland & Ellis, Bank of America, PricewaterhouseCoopers, EMC Corp. & JPMorgan Chase. His top ten contributors are all fucking banks! Occupying Wall Street should start on Mitt’s front lawn! This shows a sharp contrast from Ron Paul whose top three campaign contributors are the Air Force, the Army and the Navy. Paul’s biggest contributor is also a lot less than six figures. So who really understands the plight of the average person? Romney is so far up on the Wall Street crony capitalist ladder than he can’t remember how to get down – not that he wants to.

People that call Barack Obama the Wall Street president haven’t seen anything yet. On campaign contributions from the big banks, Obama has made significantly less than Romney. Goldman Sachs gave Obama $49,124, Morgan Stanley coughed up $28,225, Bank of America gave $46,699, JPMorgan Chase came in at $38,038 and Citigroup was at $36,887. You do the math but it is obvious who the bailed out banking industry supports.

Another thing worth noting is that Romney has gotten more money from lobbyists than all other Republican candidates combined. I guess you need all that special interest money to work towards smaller government. Damn it! That Mitt Romney doublethink is taking over my brain!

The fact of the matter is, love it or hate it, Mitt Romney has a proven track record of being nothing less than one of the heads on the big government hydra. He is an economic nightmare but because people take him at his word and don’t look at his record, he can continue to dupe the masses into thinking that he’s on their side.

Mitt Romney will say anything to get elected.

Continued in Part II: Foreign Entanglements..

*Written by Rob Rimes.

I like Jon Huntsman. Sure, he has had some policies that were shit but when looking at his stance on the foreign side of things, one of the most important factors in choosing who I want to select as president, he is pretty stellar. He is strongly anti-war and he truly understands our situation with China as well as other countries where we are in a similar boat. He is able to foresee that the Pacific region is the future of trade and understands how to utilize it in an effort to not only build up our economy but to establish a more symbiotic relationship with all these other major countries that most conservatives perceive as nasty competition in a battle for world domination. Huntsman knows that the issues of trade and foreign policy aren’t so black and white. He also understands the cultural revolutions that are going on in places like China and Iran, where the younger generations are begging to be free and to live in a society that closely resembles America. He knows that when the old guard dies in those countries, things will be much different, at least if we don’t take measures that’ll just make them hate us and continue with the old policies once they gain power. He knows that our countless wars are pointless and wants nothing more than to bring our troops home to work on our “core”, as he calls it. Huntsman is one of the few under the Republican banner that gets how all this works. In fact, Huntsman is very close on these issues with my personal pick for president, Congressman Ron Paul. That’s why I found it so disturbing to see him drop out of the race at the peak of his success and immediately endorse Mitt Romney, a man who is the ideological opposite of Huntsman on these incredibly important issues.

So why would Huntsman, who only a day or two before dropping out called Romney “unelectable”, go on to endorse him and call him “the best equipped to defeat Obama”, “a great man” and “terrificly talented”? It’s like Huntsman doesn’t think any of the GOPers are electable but Romney is the best of the bunch: whatever. Most critics of Huntsman’s endorsement feel that it’s “a Mormon thang”. While that may hold some weight, the truth is that this goes much deeper than most people know. This may just be a classic case of blood being thicker than water. Yes, blood.

The truth is, Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney are cousins. Crazy, I know because the mainstream media has pretty much ignored that fact even though it is pretty well known, especially in Utah. Weirdly, it’s as if the media doesn’t want the rest of us to discover this fact. Now they have several times referred to the two men as “frenemies” but rarely, if ever, have they mentioned the fact that these two are blood related. The fact that they have been labeled “frenemies” also raises an eyebrow and makes this strange relationship even more confusing.

Their history of ideological division is pretty lengthy. In 2008, Huntsman was quick to endorse John McCain over his fellow Mormon and cousin, Mitt Romney. It’s also interesting to note that Huntsman’s father donated $130,000 to Romney’s campaign but the younger of the two Huntsmans made it a point not to support him. The odd thing about this is that Jon Huntsman came out and immediately endorsed McCain beating every other governor in the United States to the punch. He was the first governor that year to endorse anyone. Was his mind made up that early or did he just want to stick it to his cousin?

Something else that may contribute to the bad blood between the two happened in 2006, when Romney was gearing up for his first presidential run. According to a story that ran in 2006 in the Desert Morning News:

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said Thursday that Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney entered into “probably problematic territory” in getting Brigham Young University officials to solicit support for what is widely seen as a presidential bid.

“Using a network or using an alumni list in the case of University of Utah or University of Pennsylvania or BYU is what any candidate would do,” Huntsman told reporters after taping his monthly news conference on KUED Channel 7.

“But having someone affiliated with that institution intervene directly as if they were placing an endorsement behind someone is probably problematic territory,” he said. “That seems to constitute the question.”

It was kind of a dick move for Huntsman to point that out, as he seemingly threw his cousin under the bus, but he was also the Governor of Utah at the time and chances are, he was just acting on the “up and up” and trying to be ethical. Regardless, it had to leave a bad taste in Romney’s mouth. In the end, the issue was resolved and Mitt Romney moved on: unscathed. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who owns and operates BYU, said that they were neutral on the issue and claimed that the questionable meetings between Mitt Romney’s backers and the church officials were just “courtesy calls”.

A major difference between the two is that they have very different levels of involvement with the Mormon church. Romney, as he has said, has gone to the same church for decades and very closely follows and proudly promotes his religion. Romney isn’t afraid to wear his Mormonism on his sleeve and in certain ways, it’s respectable, whether you agree with his faith or not. Jon Huntsman however, hasn’t been shy about how much he’s distanced himself from his religion. Now he hasn’t abandoned Mormonism but he has admitted that he looks at and appreciates the philosophies of other religions and ideologies and trusts in the wisdom he finds in other cultures, not just his own. Huntsman, unlike Romney, doesn’t strictly follow traditional Mormon protocol but he is also much more of a well-seasoned world traveler.

Their paths to the top are also very different. Romney has taken the traditional path, being the son of a governor and auto industry executive, he followed in his father’s footsteps. Romney went to BYU, became a leader in his church, went on religious missions overseas, became a powerful executive that lead Bain Capital to the top and also became a governor himself. Huntsman dropped out of school, traveled with his rock band, lived in Asia for some time and eventually became a governor as well. Their very contrasting origins led them to a similar place but the roads getting there went in very different directions.

Looking at their deep family ties, USA Today recently published a detailed article about it; here’s an excerpt:

Parley Pratt, an early Mormon missionary, is Romney’s great-great-grandfather and Huntsman’s great-great-great-grandfather. That’s how the two GOP candidates are related.

Huntsman’s mother, Karen, lived with Romney’s sister, Jane, while they attended the University of Utah.

Huntsman’s maternal grandfather, David Haight, was best friends with Romney’s father, George. (They grew up together in Oakley, Idaho, and would go swimming in a canal near their homes, Haight recalled in 1998 when Brigham Young University renamed its Institute of Public Management after George Romney.)

Huntsman’s uncle, Bruce, once dated Romney’s sister, Lynn.

Utah is too small of a place for all these Mormon elites to live and not cross paths. Whether the families are still close today or not is their business but the truth is, these families have a deep past together and they all come from the same source. So with the seemingly love/hate relationship between Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney, one has to ask what the angle is.

Maybe Huntsman really feels that Mitt is the best chance the country has at beating Obama. Maybe he feels bad for supporting McCain in 2008. Maybe he is just trying to support his cousin. Or, maybe Huntsman and Romney had this planned out all along because if there are two Mormons in the race, it makes Mitt’s religion seem a lot less obscure. I mean, in 2008, evangelical Christians had a huge issue with Romney being a Mormon. Today, the Mormon issue seems moot. One could argue that it is because of Huntsman also being in the race that the issue has kind of been forgotten. Then again, the Mormon thing was so four years ago and maybe people just don’t care anymore. It could also be possible that people just dislike Barack Obama so much that a candidates religious affiliation is a secondary concern.

In the end, no one will know how these two really feel about each other besides the men themselves. I just thought it was important to touch base on these issues, as the mainstream media doesn’t always get to the bottom of the story. These men are cousins with a history of being “frenemies” but regardless of that, Mitt Romney is the frontrunner of the GOP, whether anyone likes that or hates it, and now his cousin and fellow Mormon, Jon Huntsman, is in his corner.

Personally, I wish Huntsman would’ve sided with the man who shares a lot of his foreign policy points, that being Ron Paul. I guess he decided to support someone in his bloodline who is ideologically at odds with him. Whatever Huntsman’s reasoning was, doesn’t really matter. This is his cross to bear but maybe by helping the man who shares his blood, Huntsman will have a future at Romney’s side. That is, if Romney can pull this thing off. Truthfully, I just don’t think he can.

*Written by Tho Bishop.

Giving us another example of what happens when you mix ego and poor primary performance, the major story going into the South Carolina primary is the new line of attack being employed by Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry on Mitt Romney. Failing to win over voters by attacking Romney’s record as governor, the pair has turned their sights on Romney the CEO. While Rick Perry has introduced us to “Vulture Capitalism”, Gingrich is employing a 22-minute film criticizing Mitt’s time at Bain Capital, depicting Romney as “worse than the evil banker in “It’s a Wonderful Life.””

This approach has appeared to backfire with the conservative base.

Though their critiques on Bain Capital seem more appropriate coming from Chicago, Perry and Gingrich’s underlying instincts are correct. The primary, insofar that it is a referendum on the establishment-favorite, has little to do with Governor Romney, whose only real noteworthy achievement is the despised Romneycare. No, the candidacy of Mitt Romney is based entirely on his history in the private sector. It is his success as a CEO that allows him to claim he is the one candidate who understands “the real economy”.

Unfortunately for the country, Romney’s economic literacy is the biggest myth of the primary.

It would be too easy to highlight the fact that Romney subscribes to the same flawed belief that “fair and affordable housing should be a right, not a privilege,” a major contributor to the environment that created the disastrous housing bubble (after all, he said that as Governor, and Candidate Romney is nothing like Governor Romney). Instead, let’s take a look at one of Candidate Romney’s favorite topics: China.

If you have tuned in to any of the GOP debates, you should already know that he is not a big fan. On the subject of trade policy, his website highlights a plan on “Confronting China,” including the aggressive action of labeling the pseudo-Communist nation as “currency manipulators.” He goes on to criticize the Obama Administration’s “acquiescence to the one-way arrangements the Chinese have come to enjoy.” America, he believes, must be we must be “willing to say “no more” to a relationship that too often benefits them and harms us.” To anyone who would argue that there are benefits to our current relationship with the Asian power, you are being “played like a fiddle.”

As such, it is interesting that one of his top economic advisers is Harvard professor Greg Mankiw.

In 2009, Mankiw took to the New York Times to criticize the Obama Administration for threatening much of the same policy his candidate now advocates. In what would be a fitting response to Romney’s accusation of “cheating”, Mankiw writes:

“Like many economists, I cringe whenever I hear the term “fair trade.” It is not that I am against fairness — who is? — but the word “fair” is so amorphous in this context as to defy definition. Most often, the slogan “fair trade” is little more than a rallying cry for protectionism.”

Protectionism? From the man who believes he is the only one who can save capitalism from Barack Obama? Adam Smith is rolling in his grave.

But what of China’s “currency manipulation” Professor Mankiw?

“Perhaps the oddest thing about [the criticism of currency manipulation] is that [the] complaint seems out of date. The yuan-dollar exchange rate has moved considerably in recent years. After a long period of completely fixing the exchange rate, China allowed its currency to start moving in July 2005. Since then, it has appreciated by 21 percent.” (Since this article was written in 2009, it is worth noting the information is not out of date. The Chiense yuan hit an 18-year high in April of 2011.)

So according to Romney’s own expect, his major claim against China is a complete fabrication.

A cynic may argue that Romney doesn’t believe any of the baloney he preaches about China. That he is using our economic rival as a scapegoat for a public looking for someone to blame for their economic pain. This would contradict a POLITICO report that “Romney is dead serious about…putting new tariffs on Chinese imports,” but information from unnamed insiders isn’t always reliable.

So we must conclude that either Romney doesn’t fully understand the trade policy he advocates, or Romney is a demagogue not above misleading the American people to win an election. Sadly even the latter explanation doesn’t defend the governor from Mankiw’s criticism:

“Directing attention to the China currency issue amid a worldwide recession and growing fears of depression is more than a distraction. It is downright counterproductive.”

If we are to brand Romney an economic expert because of his success in the private sector, how does the GOP defend itself from the criticism of Warren Buffet? Or Bill Gates? Being a good President is different than being a savvy CEO. The failure of Romney’s opponents to credibly attack Romney’s credentials in the economy is the reason Romney’s candidacy has the strength it does today. Interestingly, the candidate who is criticized for “crank economic theory”, almost as frequently as Romney is praised for his understanding, is the only one in the GOP field who identified the housing bubble years before it crippled the US economy – Ron Paul.

Joseph P. Kennedy III, a 31-year-old Massachusetts prosecutor, will run for Congress this year in a bid to resurrect the dynasty of America’s most famous political family, reports said Thursday.

Kennedy is in the final stages of preparing a Congressional run, with hopes to succeed retiring Democratic Representative Barney Frank, the Boston Globe and Rhode Island Public Radio reported, quoting family and Democratic sources.

Should Kennedy win a seat in the House of Representatives, his family would return to national politics for the first time since Patrick Kennedy — son of the clan’s late patriarch Edward Kennedy — left office early last year.

The congressional hopeful, son of former representative Joseph P. Kennedy II and grandson of the assassinated Robert F. Kennedy, is an assistant district attorney in Middlesex county.

He speaks Spanish fluently, and graduated from Stanford University and Harvard Law School, according to his biography on the website of the prosecutor’s office.

The media reports said he is opening an exploratory committee, a legal step that would allow him to start raising campaign funds, as well as preparing to quit his job at the district attorney’s office.

One or more members of the storied and troubled US political clan have served in Washington since John F. Kennedy successfully ran for a House seat from Massachusetts in 1946, before going on to win the presidency.

The death in 2009 of senator Edward Kennedy was seen as a landmark, leaving no Kennedys in high political office and ending the last high-profile public link to the era of the assassinated JFK.

The Kennedys were once an unbeatable political brand in liberal Massachusetts, but their decline came into relief when a special election to fill Edward Kennedy’s vacated Senate seat was won by Republican Scott Brown.

Source: Google News.

*Taken from My FOX Boston. Video at link.

The Coast Guard in Boston confirmed that a woman in uniform was harassed and spat upon near Occupy Boston protesters.

The woman was walking to the train and said protesters spit on her twice, called her foul names and even threw a water bottle at her.

Now, the Coast Guard is warning all staff working on Atlantic Avenue to avoid those protesters while in uniform.

CONTINUED..

My Two Cents: Pawlenty drops out and quickly endorses Romney? Sounds like a deal was made and Romney’s got his VP if he wins the primary. End Two Cents.

*Taken from National Journal. Video at link.

Former Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty, who dropped out of the race last month, endorsed Mitt Romney for president, in an appearance on “Fox and Friends” this morning. “The next president is going to have to lead on the economy and jobs in a historic way and there’s one candidate in this race who is unmatched in his skills and experience and talent when it comes to turning around this economy and growing jobs. And that’s Mitt Romney,” Pawlenty said on the program. “And I’m proud and excited to endorse him for president of the United States.” Pawlenty said he will be serving as the national co-chairman of Romney’s campaign. He also said he didn’t want to be considered as Romney’s running mate. Pawlenty will be appearing with Romney Monday at a campaign event in Charleston, South Carolina. Pawlenty’s endorsement comes as the Republican establishment still has questions about Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s electability in a general election. Pawlenty dropped out of the race last month after the Ames Straw poll just as Perry launched his candidacy. Asked in the interview about Perry’s writings equating Social Security to a Ponzi scheme, Pawlenty noted the contrast on the issue between the two presidential candidates. “I know this. Governor Romney wants to fix Social Security. He doesn’t believe it should be thrown out. He believes it should be reformed and fixed and I think that’s the right approach. I think most Americans; most republicans understand that we’re going to need Social Security in a reformed and improved fashion going forward. That’s what Mitt Romney supports and that’s what I support as well.” Pawlenty went on to draw a clear contrast between the two: “Gov. Romney wants to fix Social Security. He doesn’t want to abolish it or end it…Gov. Perry has said in the past that he thought it was ‘failed’.'”

CONTINUED..

My Two Cents: Since the next debate is on tonight, I figured I’d repost my rundown of the last debate to refresh your memory. End Two Cents.

*Written by Rob Rimes. Last night’s debate was the second GOP debate of the 2012 election cycle. It was also the first debate to include frontrunner Mitt Romney. Unlike the last round, this debate pretty much sucked. There are several reasons for this but to be brutally honest, I think the first debate kicked ass and left me with a lot of hope, where this latest debate left me shaking my head in disbelief, wondering if this was just some sort of … Read More

via TheSwash.com