Thank you, Ron Paul

For pointing out the obvious about Newt.

I admit awe at Newt’s recent poll numbers because I can’t for the life of me figure out why on earth anyone who claims to be conservative would vote for him. If conservatism doesn’t matter, then vote for Mitt. Why Newt? It certainly takes ethics off the table in the general election, among myriad other things: lobbying, bad money, bad politics, pandering to the left, Donald Berwick. Good lord. 

H/t Hot Air.



“So perfectly organized a structure, it was hard not to attribute divinity to it.”

So says Alexander Tsarias of collagen and how the structure changes within the human body. Watch the TED lecture and marvel.


The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go– the complexity of these, the mathematical models of how these things are indeed done are beyond human comprehension. Even though I’m a mathematician, I look at this with a marvel of how did these instruction sets not make mistakes as they build what is us. It’s a mystery, its magic, its divinity.

We need more men like this in science and art–in this life, no? More men to speak plainly the truth of that mystery, magic, and divinity apparent in each human being and to breathe life into the art of science. To show the miracle of life and living. I’ve been a little awed by it myself lately.

My apologies for the extended absence. It’s a long and rather boring story. But I’m back on the wagon. With hope.

H/t: CMR

Pundette: “I hope Perry keeps going.”

Me, too. Granted, we’re two smart moms with a news habit, not the big heads who proclaim Perry’s chances dead. I argued with my husband ad nauseam last night who sang the glories of how polished Mitt is in the face of Perry’s gaffe. Sad truth: Perry’s performance up to that point was his best debate showing yet.


Laugh if you like. At least he’s real. I’ll take him over the smooth faux-conservative Romney any day.

Republican support for Romney based on his supposed electability is pure group-think. And the eager rush to bring Perry down based on his lack of debating skills is unseemly. I thought conservative minds were more incisive and independent than that. America is in dire need of a principled and courageous leader but all we care about is a smooth performance with no awkward silences? Too bad Alex Trebec isn’t eligible; he’s very good in front of a camera. How about Ryan Seacrest? Then you’d get the youth vote, too. He’s probably pretty liberal but does that really matter? He can pay lip service to conservative beliefs and we can pretend to believe him.

I’m with her. Count me among the Perrykrishnas. I’d rather believe in something genuine sans polish than Mitt.

Exit question: why is Gingrich still up there? Why hasn’t he been run out of town on a rail? Seriously. For those who stake their last hopes on a polished, smart man who happened to conduct his personal affairs (no pun intended) in the most odious manner possible. I scoffed at tweets last night horrified at how he alienated women with his treatment of the moderator. A joke, right? All women have to do is realize what a skunk he is.

A pair of Perry interviews

Can he turn it around? As Cain’s campaign implodes from within, you never know.

I loved seeing Perry whip the postcard out of his pocket.

What do you think?

Please, bring out the good erasers.

Jim Geraghty snarks:

One is tempted to ask, what “progress” are they talking about?

The 9 percent unemployment? The $3.43 per gallon gas in November? Freddie Mac needing another bailout?

The fact that 5 million U.S. households are either in foreclosure or delinquent on their mortgage, and 11 million homeowners owe more than their homes are worth? The fact that nearly 49 million Americans, almost 15 percent of the U.S., is currently on food stamps?

The angry young people camping in public parks and fighting with police?

Solyndra? Fast and Furious?

The list goes on. Pray for that eraser, folks, because we must undo what this man has done.

Related, my favorite new website: At least some folks on the right understand that half-baked flip-flops aren’t going to get it done.

H/t: Hot Air.

“The tinkering technocrats think Washington can be fixed with a pair of tweezers.”

So says Rick Perry of the mess inside the Beltway. His solution? Not more of the same:

I, on the other hand, think it will require a president with the courage to take a sledgehammer to the three pillars of big government: overspending, overtaxation and overregulation.

Huzzah. What’s on the Perry 100 day plan (and why, man, did you not roll this out on day two?!)?

Upon taking the oath of office, I will take immediate executive action to begin dismantling the Washington establishment so we can rebuild the American economy from the foundation up.

First, I will issue an executive order prohibiting the Department of Health and Human Services from any further implementation of Obamacare until we can fully repeal this unconstitutional government mandate, which, if it stands, will diminish our health care and kill jobs.

Once again, do you honestly think the architect of Romneycare will dismantle it’s demon spawn, Obamacare? Not likely. The man remains proud of his accomplishment, for all the good it does Massachusetts citizens.

Second, I will order federal agencies to begin opening American energy fields for exploration and development, which will kick-start economic growth, reduce our dependence on energy from hostile foreign sources and eventually create 1.2 million jobs across every sector of the economy. I also will work with Congress to ensure that new revenue generated from energy production on federal lands is used to pay down the national debt.

Hardest hit: Elaine.

Third, I will impose an immediate moratorium on all pending federal regulations, during which government agencies must audit every measure passed since 2008 to determine its necessity and impact on job creation. Those measures that kill jobs will be repealed.

Be still, my beating heart. Why stop at 2008?

And fourth, I will deploy thousands of National Guard personnel to secure our southern border until we can provide the permanent increase in manpower, technology and fencing needed to protect the American homeland in the long run. If I am elected, Washington will no longer abdicate its constitutional responsibility to secure the border or force states to fend for themselves.

Perry raised the ire of conservatives again with the suggestion he would allow work visas for illegal immigrants once the border was secure. He said no to amnesty. Secure the border. Work permits. Pay taxes. Why is this a poor solution?

In addition to exercising executive authority during the first 100 days of my presidency, I also will lay out a sweeping legislative agenda that will fundamentally change the way Washington works.

Amen. Read the rest.

Romney to NARAL in 2002: GOP “not doing themselves a favor by being so vehemently anti-choice”

What a surprise, right? The Washington Post endears Romney to the so-called liberal Republicans:

Mitt Romney was firm and direct with the abortion rights advocates sitting in his office nine years ago, assuring the group that if elected Massachusetts governor, he would protect the state’s abortion laws.

Then, as the meeting drew to a close, the businessman offered an intriguing suggestion — that he would rise to national prominence in the Republican Party as a victor in a liberal state and could use his influence to soften the GOP’s hard-line opposition to abortion…

“You need someone like me in Washington,” several participants recalled Romney saying that day in September 2002, an apparent reference to his future ambitions…

Melissa Kogut, the NARAL group’s executive director in 2002, recalled Wednesday that as she and other participants in the meeting began to pack their belongings to leave after the 45-minute session, Romney became “emphatic that the Republican Party was not doing themselves a service by being so vehemently anti-choice.”

The abortion rights supporters came away from the meeting pleasantly surprised. Romney declined to label himself “pro-choice” but said he eschewed all labels, including “pro-life.” He told the group that he would “protect and preserve a woman’s right to choose under Massachusetts law” and that he thought any move to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision would be a “serious mistake for our country.”

With friends like NARAL, Romney doesn’t need enemies. How enlightening that would be in a debate with Obama, no? They could parrot each other. Keep it, um, safe, legal, and … yeah. Kill more babies! How depressing that a Republican nominee could be as dangerous to life as the Democrat. Look how far we’ve come! More from the WaPo:

Now, as they [his liberal BFFs] watch Romney’s ascent from his old stomping grounds in Boston, many of the liberals he encountered wonder whether his transformation has been sincere or a matter of sheer politics. Not only did he espouse more liberal views at the time, but Romney presented himself as a change agent who could soften the GOP’s rough ideological edges.

One of the liberal fans–a Democrat for Romney, if you will–believes it’s a matter of saying whatever needs to be said to win the nomination. What a surprise, eh? Via Smitty at The Other McCain, here’s damning praise if I’ve ever seen it:

One of Mitt Romney’s oldest Democratic supporters says the Republican presidential contender is a “warm” and “decent” person who is only masquerading as a die-hard conservative to win the Republican nomination.
“Obviously the positions that Mitt’s taking now are different than the positions he did when he ran for and served as Governor of Massachusetts,” Rocky Anderson, the former mayor of Salt Lake City, told HuffPost. “His handlers got to him and said, ‘This is what you need to do.’ And that’s what he’s doing to get elected.”

Smitty argues:

BHO has pretty well destroyed any need for consistency from politicians, so maybe being on all sides of every major issue is a boon to Mitt.

No. Maybe liberals could care less if Obama has no–or successfully hid his–core convictions. But for those of us who think conviction matters (how antiquated), voting for Mitt is as much of an impossibility as voting for Obama.

H/t: Hot Air headlines

Hold the phone, y’all.

This is nearly ridiculous.

Herman Cain has been accused of untoward behavior. He changed his story a few times after receiving a 10-day warning the story would be published. In theory, a ten-day span should be long enough to get a story straight, especially if you’re telling the truth, no?

Don’t get me wrong: I like Cain. Not planning on voting for him in the primary, but I do like him. And I don’t want to see him dragged in the mud for no reason.

That said, running around pointing fingers at other campaigns is, well, a bit silly.

The Other McCain suggests Perry will be finished over all of this. Seriously? Who else do you think Cain would finger? The BFF he’d happily serve as flip-flopping vice president for or the one he said wasn’t “conservative enough” for him?

Give me a break.

And there’s this nugget to consider via Patterico:








That might be a bitter pill for  ol’ Herman to swallow, eh? That his RINO BFF crossed him? Be careful of those flip floppers. They say they like you one day…


What happened to Romney being the *only* electable Republican?

In Wisconsin, no less. Hot damn:

Barack Obama carried Wisconsin easily in the 2008 presidential election, but he is slightly behind Texas Governor Rick Perry and runs just ahead of two other top Republican hopefuls in Rasmussen Reports’ first Election 2012 look at the Badger State.

Perry earns 46% support from Likely Wisconsin Voters to Obama’s 42% in a new statewide telephone survey. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and another six percent (6%) are undecided.

Hmm. Wisconsin a battleground? Check. Wisconsin for Perry? Check. Hardest hit? Ol’ flip flopper.

H/t: Hot Air headlines