Santorum Weasels His Way Out Of Earlier Gaffe About Women In The Military And Their “Emotions”

Ann Curry interviews Rick Santorum

First, he claims to have  said “blah” not “Blacks” in a controversial statement.

Now he says he was not backing down on what he said about women in the military but shamelessly waffles like the a**hole that he is…

Raw Story

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum insisted on Friday that when he claimed there were too many “emotions” for women to serve in combat roles, he was talking about men’s feelings, not women’s. (Ed. Note: Pants On Fire!)

Many had taken remarks the candidate made to CNN’s John King on Thursday to mean women were too emotional to fight on the front lines.

“I do have concerns about women in front line combat,” Santorum told King. “I think that could be a very compromising situation people naturally, you know, may do things that may not be in the interests of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved.”

NBC’s Ann Curry gave Santorum a chance to clarify his remarks the next day.

“I meant exactly what I said,” the former Pennsylvania senator said. “When you have men and women together in combat, I think there’s — men have the emotions when you see a woman in harm’s way. I think it’s something that’s natural, that’s very much in our culture to be protective.”

“Some people might listen to that quote and think you meant you were concerned about women being emotional,” Curry noted.

“Oh, no,” Santorum replied. “No, the issue is — and certainly one that has been talked about for a long, long time — is how men would react to seeing women in harm’s way, potentially being injured or in a vulnerable position, and not being concerned about accomplishing the mission.”

Donald Trump Slams Lawrence O’Donnell: You’re A Poor Man’s Ed Schultz And Al Sharpton

Lawrence O’Donnell cannot stand Donald Trump and lets his audience know this as often as he can…


On Thursday, Donald Trump lit into MSNBC’sLawrence O’Donnell on Twitter, going on a lengthy tirade, mocking him that his show will soon be cancelled. “Lawrence O’Donnell will soon have another cancelled show to go along with his three cancelled TV series, “Mister Sterling”, “The Kill Point” and “First Monday”,” Trump tweeted.

RELATED: Lawrence O’Donnell Breaks It To Donald Trump: ‘Romney Knows’ He Is ‘America’s Biggest Loser’

“@lawrence is a poor man’s Ed Schultz (who replaced @Lawrence) and Al Sharpton,” Trump continued. “He was moved to 10PM due to bad ratings and taken off Friday due to being totally irrelevant. He desperately needs to keep making up false statements about me to get attention. Without clips of me, his show would be completely dead and he knows it. As I have said many times before @Lawrence is the dumbest man on television. He is only angry because I would never have wasted my time doing his completely irrelevant show.”

O’Donnell responded humorously that The Donald was wrong:

(h/t HuffPo)

Romney’s CPAC Speech Has An Epic Stagecraft Fail


The awkward elements of Mitt Romney’s speech at CPAC Friday began even before the GOP frontrunner opened his mouth.

Like all the high-profile speakers before him, Romney delivered his address from the CPAC main stage at a Marriot hotel in Washington, DC. That means he stood behind a pair of teleprompters and in front of a pair of fake Grecian columns.

Just the other night, when he was giving his address amid the defeats in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado, Romney took a shot at the man he’s trying to oust from the White House for – well – using teleprompters and standing in front of fake columns. Here’s part of the transcript from Romney’s Colorado speech on February 7):

Three years ago, Barack Obama came to Colorado to accept his Party’s nomination. He rented out a huge stadium. He hauled in some Styrofoam Greek columns and two giant screens to set the mood. On that big stage in Denver, he made some even bigger promises.

At either side of Romney while he spoke at CPAC?   Two giant screens. Of course, all the other speakers had appeared with the same stagecraft, but they hadn’t just recently attacked President Obama for using that exact set-up.

Continue reading…

Related articles

Gov. Scott Walker To Use Foreclosure Settlement Money To Balance His Budget, Not Help Homeowners

If Scott Walker uses the Foreclosure Settlement that the Obama Administration negotiated with the banks, to by-pass those homeowners who qualify for that money, so that he can balance his budget, Walker may have just sealed his fate in the upcoming re-call election

Think Progress

Yesterday, 49 states joined the federal government in announcing a $26 billion settlement with five of the nation’s biggest banks over the banks’ foreclosure fraud abuses. The money from the settlement is meant to aid homeowners who lost their homes to foreclosure or who find themselves underwater, meaning they owe more on their mortgage than their home is currently worth.

However, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) — whose high profile assault on workers’ rights has prompted a recall effort against him — isn’t planning to use the money to help homeowners. Under the terms of the settlement, Wisconsin is set to receive $140 million, $31.6 million of which comes directly to the state government. And Walker is planning to use $25.6 million of that money to help balance his state’s budget:

Of a $31.6 million payment coming directly to the state government, most of that money – $25.6 million – will go to help close a budget shortfall revealed in newly released state projections. [Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen], whose office said he has the legal authority over the money, made the decision in consultation with Walker.

“Just like communities and individuals have been affected, the foreclosure crisis has had an effect on the state of Wisconsin, in terms of unemployment. … This will offset that damage done to the state of Wisconsin,” Walker said.

A memo from Wisconsin’s Legislative Fiscal Bureau released yesterday notes “it is anticipated that Wisconsin will receive $31.6 million. Based on discussions between the Attorney General and the administration, of the amounts received by the state, $25.6 million will be deposited to the general fund as GPR-Earned in 2011-12, and the remaining $6 million will be retained by the Department of Justice to be allocated at a later date.”

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D) criticized Walker’s move, saying “not one dime [of the settlement] should be used to fund the unbalanced state budget.” Adding insult to injury, Walker has previously criticized using one-time settlement money to fill budget holes.

The settlement money already doesn’t come close to addressing the depths of the nation’s housing problem, though it will provide real relief to the people whom it does reach. But the money was certainly not intended to paper over state budget problems, particularly in a state whose governor assured everybody up and down that busting his state’s public unions was the key to fiscal solvency. (HT: Jessica Arp)

The Day In 100 Seconds: CPAC Day One


Well, we’re one third of the way through the annual right wing confab known as the Conservative Political Action Conference and what a journey already.

The big guns are still to come, but the warm up acts today included Senators, Congressmen, former Presidential Candidates, actors, talking heads and one self-described comedian.

We heard a litany of reasons why conservatives are just plain awesome and possibly more reasons why the President has to go. So, sit back, catch up on the highlights and get ready because the best is yet to come…

Food Stamp President(s) – Oh SNAP!

February 8, 2012 – Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) came to the House Floor to respond to Newt Gingrich, who has begun calling President Obama the “Food Stamp President.” Armed with facts, the Congressman has a little fun setting the record straight and despite the name calling, he concludes that “hunger knows no race or religion or age or political party. Hunger is colorblind.”

Virginia State Officials Confirm: Gingrich Campaign Being Investigated for ‘Illegal Acts’

Everything old is new again…

Addicting Info

Have you ever known Newt Gingrich to identify a flaw or fault with a politician, the President, the Democratic Party (etc), that he didn’t turn into the gravest, most evil transgression that humanity have ever been subjected too? When it comes to making proverbial mountains at of molehill, employing hyperbolic rhetoric to embarrass and humiliate his enemies, the-Newt, is king of the demagogues.

So if this story happened to Mitt Romney, Barack Obama or any other political enemy of the former House Speaker, how do you think he might handle it?

The BRAD BLOG  is reporting that Virginia State officials have confirmed that a criminal investigation of the Gingrich for President Campaign is now underway in what investigators are describing as, massive “voter fraud.”

You may recall, that the Gingrich campaign failed to turn in enough signatures  on petitions this past December, to qualify the candidate to appear on that state’s upcoming Republican primary ballot. In fact, by Gingrich’s own admission, his campaign turned in 11,100 signatures when only 10,000 were needed. The problem? 1500 of those signatures were quickly identified as fraudulent.

Of course Newt wants us to believe that this was “just a mistake” made by person his campaign had hired to collect signatures. Who was this one person who made the mistake? The campaign won’t say. Why not? Wouldn’t it be easier to scape-goat a lazy, minimum wage signature collector that let the entire campaign get black eye?

The Virginia State Attorney General’s  office doesn’t view voter fraud on this scale as being “just a mistake.” In fact, an official in the Virginia State Board of Elections (SBE) described it as, “definitely an illegal act.”

Brian J. Gottestein, Director of Communication for the Office of the Attorney General confirmed to The BRAD BLOG that there is “an investigation underway.” Other than stating that fact, Gottestein refused to comment further and declined to indicate how much cooperation the AG’s office is getting from Gingrich’s Virginia campaign organization.

Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul campaigns turned in enough signatures to be on the ballot. Surprisingly, Rick Santorum’s  campaign also failed to collect enough signatures to insure that his name would be on the ballot in the southern, socially conservative state.

In the last presidential election, the grass-roots progressive organization ACORN , was put out of business when it was determined that some of the people they had hired to do voter registration, had turned in fraudulent forms.

At the time, The BRAD BLOG points out, Newt Gingrich wrote in an op-ed column that “ACORN has a long history of engaging in voter fraud.”

Really? Based on that logic, can we assume from the Virginia incident that this was not the first time the Gingrich campaign has engaged in illegal acts and voter fraud?

It will be interesting to see how the conservative media handles this scandal in light of the incessant coverage given to the “mistake” ACORN made.

CNN suspended Roland Martin. Why not Dana Loesch or Erik Erickson?

As of this week, CNN owns whatever ugliness comes out of Dana Loesch's mouth. (Gage Skidmore)

There’s no doubt that CNN commentator Roland Martin, was way out of line with his homophobic tweets recently.  He deserved whatever CNN dished out to him.

Yet, the question lingers, why is Dana Loesch and Erik Erikson still on CNN given the political vitriol that both have continue to spew for months now?

Daily Kos

It took CNN from Sunday evening or Monday morning until Wednesday to decide tosuspend Roland Martin for his homophobic tweets during the Super Bowl. The network’s decision to act sets a standard that they have some basic values that apply to their contributors’ public statements not only on CNN but elsewhere. But does this standard apply only to Roland Martin?

Earlier this month:

“Here is a story to make you laugh for the day…An Occupy DC protester was shot by stun gun yesterday afternoon,” [Erik] Erickson said on his radio show on Tuesday. “Watching a hippie protester get tased just makes my day.”

CNN’s official position was that “CNN contributors’ views are their own.” In fact, we have to figure that’s the sort of thing CNN hired Erickson to say, since by the time they hired him he had a long record of statements like, “The nation loses the only goat f*&king child molester to ever serve on the Supreme Court in David Souter’s retirement.”

It’s not just Erickson. Just a month ago, Dana Loesch used her radio show to say, “Can someone explain to me if there’s supposed to be a scandal that someone pees on the corpse of a Taliban fighter? Someone who, as part of an organization, murdered over 3,000 Americans? I’d drop trou and do it too.”

Then, too, CNN’s position was that “CNN contributors are commentators who express a wide range of viewpoints—on and off of CNN—that often provoke strong agreement or disagreement. Their viewpoints are their own.”

But by suspending Martin, the network has accepted ownership of Erickson and Loesch’s public statements on their radio shows, Twitter accounts and in other venues. Even if they don’t want to retroactively apply a new standard to months-old statements, just this week—days after Martin’s offensive tweets—Loesch suggested that the NAACP’s Ben Jealous must have been “inebriated” to have said that voter ID laws suppress the black vote.

Politico’s Dylan Byers reports that:

CNN would not directly address the decision to suspend Martin while not suspending Loesch and Erickson, though a CNN executive did tell me over email that the network was looking to “raise the bar” on professionalism.

How low does CNN’s bar have to be set right now to keep allowing Erik Erickson and Dana Loesch over it? Or does the network have some justification for why Erickson and Loesch are exempt from notions of professionalism?