See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On February 19th, 2012 at 1:59 pm, Collateral Damage said:

   Hey, Obastard & Co (A$$holerod) will have to stand in line. Rick Santorum is just starting to be carpet-bombed by RINO Romney (aka Obama-Lite), which proves what the EVIL George Soros stated: “Not a dime’s worth of difference” between Obastard and Willard (from the RAT movie of the same name). MICHIGAN, the RepublicRAT establishment is trying to infect you with the deadly and dreaded LEMMING disease, MHIT-For-Brains!?! This dreaded LEMMING disease MHIT-For-Brains will ROB you of any common sense, and make you to vote for LIBERALS against yuour will!?! Michigam and Arizona, INNOCULATE youselves NOW against this dreaded LEMMING disease, MHIT-For-Brains before it’s TOO LATE!?!?!

2. #102
   On February 19th, 2012 at 2:17 pm, almiller said:

   Nominate Rick and get us Obama in 2012.. Conservatives live in a delusional bubble.

3. #103
   On February 19th, 2012 at 2:20 pm, txvet2 said:

   On February 19th, 2012 at 1:59 pm, Collateral Damage said:

   Romney’s hardly unique in that respect, and Santorum is certainly not the first victim.

4. #104
   On February 19th, 2012 at 2:45 pm, Blackstone said:

   On February 19th, 2012 at 1:20 pm, txvet2 said:

   He also has the FBI, CIA, NSA, et al. (Plus, under the Patriot Act and the recent NDA, he has the authority to use the military to detain anybody under the guise of terrorism.) Congress has…. a lot of hot air and no troops.

   “Hot air” can be a very valuable commodity to those willing to use it. Pen mightier than the sword and all that. The problem, the guys in Congress on “our” side are too mealy-mouthed to give a forceful argument against any of it, so as usual, the Dems have exclusive control over the mic.

   I’m still optimistic enough to think that if we can manage to defeat him in this next election that there’s a chance he’ll actually step down – but I have to be realistic enough to know that if he didn’t, it would be difficult to force him to.

   You’re totally and utterly misreading the situation there. Americans may not be motivated by much, but they have no tolerance for outright dictatorship. Yes, in their ignorance they’ll accept it if they can be convinced that they’re really still in charge (which isn’t difficult given their short attention span), but when there’s absolutely no way to disguise it, they won’t accept it for a second, and neither will the military, without which Obama would be powerless. He tries to “stay in power” and all it will elicit from them would be a “who the hell are you?”

   And with the number of firearms still in private hands it would be pretty much impossible, and I doubt he’ll be able to confiscate them all in less than a year.

5. #105
   On February 19th, 2012 at 2:58 pm, ChapBix said:

   #21 On February 18th, 2012 at 7:57 pm, AmericaFirst said:

   Santorum needs a briefing sheet on every fake reporter/anchor prior to any interview. He needs to know the slander, lies, distortions about himself from that specific MSM fool/tool.

   I apologize for taking the liberty of modifying your comment.

6. #106
   On February 19th, 2012 at 3:06 pm, ChapBix said:

   #25. On February 18th, 2012 at 8:17 pm, Flyoverman said:

   Would love to see that! Along the same lines, a similar question could go like this:

   MSM tool: How do you you respond to the charge of inserting earmarks into legislation?

   Santorum: When you vigorously go after Obama on bailouts and loans to cronies that leave them at the head of the line for disposal of assets of those same bankrupted companies, I’ll answer your question.

7. #107
   On February 19th, 2012 at 3:07 pm, valleygreaser said:

   Dirk said:
   Extremism charges from Obama/MSM lackeys re:contraception should be answered, every time with: I won’t ban contraception use any time, ever. But the extremist in this argument is OBAMA. He voted “present” over 100 times as an IL state Senator, but felt strongly enough about his love of infanticide/abortion to stand up in the IL Senate and speak out against a reasonable law to make Doctors, who accidentally birth a live child during an abortion attempt to save the life of that baby.
   You got it, bro. Most voters are unaware (thanks to MSM) of just how extreme BHO really is. If the dems take on Rick on such issues, the people will see who the real extremist is: a man who personally disagrees with artificial contraception but has no agenda to impose his view on others, or one who tried to legislate infanticide. I say, Bring it on. Yeah, Rick may be a tad right of center but BHO is so far off the deep end of the left that even NARAL is to his right. Rick is a GREAT candidate. The dems have NOTHING to campaign on. They can kiss Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin goodbye. Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana and Iowa are coming home. Rubio as VP would make Florida a sure thing. If Rick wins the Michigan primary, and possibly Arizona too, he’ll be set to clean house on Super Tuesday. We’re gonna win this thing – Change is coming. It’s gonna be like Reagan II.

8. #108
   On February 19th, 2012 at 3:42 pm, ChapBix said:

   #35. On February 18th, 2012 at 8:50 pm, committed said:

   Given the sparse nature of the gray material between their ears, how long will it take them to move off the social issues when they have been told that no further questions will be answered unless they have something to do with the economy and exploding national debt? I’m thinking they will keep asking socially loaded questions until the cows come home.

9. #109
   On February 19th, 2012 at 3:44 pm, thejim said:

   Contraception isn’t an issue in anyone’s decision making process. It is a diversion and should be treated as one. “Get on with it,ask a serious question” is a suitable answer to MSM types.

10. #110
    On February 19th, 2012 at 3:46 pm, ChapBix said:

    While it leaves me uneasy about Santorum’s affinity for unions, it may help with union rank and file in the general election who have soured on Obama and the Democrats. It worked for Reagan in ’80 and ’84. Let’s hope history repeats itself.

11. #111
    On February 19th, 2012 at 3:50 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On February 19th, 2012 at 12:58 pm, Hangfire said:
    ILMC, Gladiola, Harry Bailey, Kentroyal, who else is missing?
    Ota Billie Joe?

    Good grief, how could I have forgotten Ota BeenGay! Ewwwwww!

12. #112
    On February 19th, 2012 at 3:52 pm, ChapBix said:

    #104. On February 19th, 2012 at 2:45 pm, Blackstone said:

    On February 19th, 2012 at 1:20 pm, txvet2 said:

    He also has the FBI, CIA, NSA, et al. (Plus, under the Patriot Act and the recent NDA, he has the authority to use the military to detain anybody under the guise of terrorism.) Congress has…. a lot of hot air and no troops.

    “Hot air” can be a very valuable commodity to those willing to use it. Pen mightier than the sword and all that. The problem, the guys in Congress on “our” side are too mealy-mouthed to give a forceful argument against any of it, so as usual, the Dems have exclusive control over the mic.

    It is a lonely vigil standing guard behind the mic, waiting for the next photo opp and Chuckie Schumer to show up.

13. #113
    On February 19th, 2012 at 3:59 pm, txvet2 said:

    On February 19th, 2012 at 2:45 pm, Blackstone said:

    “Hot air” can be a very valuable commodity to those willing to use it. Pen mightier than the sword and all that.

    Obviously Bulwer-Lytton never found himself in a dark alley armed with a pen while confronting a thief with a sword. One of the stupider quotes from literature. Congress, without the cooperation of the Executive, is utterly powerless and without a sympathetic press, voiceless.

    You’re totally and utterly misreading the situation there.

    I didn’t say he couldn’t be forced out, only that it would be difficult. You have every right to be an optimist, and maybe there really is a pony under that pile of manure. I believe in hoping and working for the best, and preparing for the worst. You are undoubtedly right about some of the American people, indisputably wrong about a significant minority, and overly optimistic about the rest, including the military. The best that could be hoped for would be civil war, and that ain’t good. We tried it once. And try to keep in mind that we conservatives aren’t the only ones out here with guns.

14. #114
    On February 19th, 2012 at 4:02 pm, ChapBix said:

    #111. On February 19th, 2012 at 3:50 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On February 19th, 2012 at 12:58 pm, Hangfire said:
    ILMC, Gladiola, Harry Bailey, Kentroyal, who else is missing?
    Ota Billie Joe?

    Good grief, how could I have forgotten Ota BeenGay! Ewwwwww!

    While we have been enjoying their absence, I suspect they will reappear as we near November 6.

15. #115
    On February 19th, 2012 at 4:30 pm, Blackstone said:

    On February 19th, 2012 at 3:59 pm, txvet2 said:

    Obviously Bulwer-Lytton never found himself in a dark alley armed with a pen while confronting a thief with a sword. One of the stupider quotes from literature.

    Only when read in such an obviously contrived literal manner that no one could ever take seriously. But if words were powerless, governments would never try to restrain them.

    You are undoubtedly right about some of the American people, indisputably wrong about a significant minority, and overly optimistic about the rest, including the military. The best that could be hoped for would be civil war, and that ain’t good.

    What do you seriously expect would happen if after having been defeated in the election, Obama on January 21, 2013, tried to declare himself still in charge? Who would even give him the time of day? It would be just as futile as me trying to declare myself in charge.

    People with illegitimate power wield it subtly, under the radar, in a way that gives them enough of a plausible basis to claim that they’re acting legitimately. That’s where the attention should be focused, not on totally unrealistic scenarios like this.

16. #116
    On February 19th, 2012 at 5:14 pm, happyscrapper said:

    What do you seriously expect would happen if after having been defeated in the election, Obama on January 21, 2013, tried to declare himself still in charge? Who would even give him the time of day? It would be just as futile as me trying to declare myself in charge.

    I can see it now…the GOP POTUS is sworn in and starts to move into the WH. Obama is still there. The MP’s are called and grab him by the ankles, throwing him out on the lawn, then his belongings after him. The last thing they toss out is a strange Christmas ornament with a picture of Mao on it. It hits him squarely between the eyes, then bounces into a big mud puddle. Thus ends the reign of Barack Hussein Obama…mmmm, mmmmm, mmmmm!!

    I can dream, can’t I??

17. #117
    On February 19th, 2012 at 5:21 pm, almiller said:

    They won’t move hard against Santorum unless he gets the nomination but then watch out
    http://fb.trove.com/fbwapolabs/mobile/me/channels/trending/content/HpXkH?ref=web_canvas

18. #118
    On February 19th, 2012 at 6:20 pm, Blackstone said:

    I can see it now…the GOP POTUS is sworn in and starts to move into the WH. Obama is still there. The MP’s are called and grab him by the ankles, throwing him out on the lawn, then his belongings after him. The last thing they toss out is a strange Christmas ornament with a picture of Mao on it. It hits him squarely between the eyes, then bounces into a big mud puddle.

    Then just as he’s starting to get up, the teleprompter comes flying out the window and knocks him face-down into the same mud puddle.

19. #119
    On February 19th, 2012 at 6:22 pm, Blackstone said:

    On February 19th, 2012 at 5:21 pm, almiller said:

    They won’t move hard against Santorum unless he gets the nomination but then watch out

    Definitely true, and I don’t know how equipped he is to handle it. Performance up to now doesn’t fill me with confidence.

20. #120
    On February 19th, 2012 at 7:08 pm, conservative hispanic said:

    Pasadena Phil #78;

    I could try and deconstruct you nonsense line by line, but I have better things to do. Besides, other posters have already done so, in a much better way than me.

    You stil can’t (or won’t) understand my main, AND ONLY, premise:

    Obowtome can’t be re-elected. If he does, the country is finished. No amount of Tea Party candidates (unless it’s 2/3 of BOTH Houses) will be able to stop him, not with the Demonrats covering for him. He’ll use the burocracy to IMPOSE his leftists views.

    Now, if you’re OK with the Marxist-In-Chief getting another 4 years in the WH, then you’re even more stupid than other posters say you are.

21. #121
    On February 19th, 2012 at 7:36 pm, happyscrapper said:

    Phil…I asked you earlier in the thread if you are saying you WON’T support Santorum because he is part of the GOP. I never got an answer. I’m waiting….

22. #122
    On February 19th, 2012 at 7:40 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On February 19th, 2012 at 6:20 pm, Blackstone said:
    Then just as he’s starting to get up, the teleprompter comes flying out the window and knocks him face-down into the same mud puddle.

    He struggles into a sitting position just as the other TOTUS comes flying out, lands on the Mao ornament, demolishing it. Obama picks up the pieces with tears in his eyes, puts one TOTUS under each arm and starts the long walk to the gate.

23. #123
    On February 19th, 2012 at 8:25 pm, txvet2 said:

    On February 19th, 2012 at 4:30 pm, Blackstone said:

    Only when read in such an obviously contrived literal manner that no one could ever take seriously. But if words were powerless, governments would never try to restrain them.

    Actually, it’s one of those silly things that “intellectuals” say to each other as they’re passing the bong around while somebody else is getting his butt shot off protecting them. They’ve been saying the same thing for centuries, but it took a couple of revolutions to actually accomplish anything. Or to put it another way, the pen may instigate change, but it takes the sword to execute it.

    What do you seriously expect would happen if after having been defeated in the election, Obama on January 21, 2013, tried to declare himself still in charge? Who would even give him the time of day? It would be just as futile as me trying to declare myself in charge.

    You’re making a couple of unwarranted assumptions here. For instance, that the other candidate actually survives to Inauguration Day, or isn’t incarcerated on some serious charges, or that the results aren’t overturned because of claims of voter fraud on the challenger’s part, or that CSPAN and the networks aren’t suddenly broadcasting nothing but pro-Obama propaganda as Congressional Republicans are arrested en masse, Fox Broadcasting is shut down by the FBI, and Obama’s loyalist troops guard DC as he takes the new inaugural oath proclaiming himself President for Life.

    Obviously, I think Americans are above all that too, or I’d be making other plans already. But don’t discount the fanaticism of those on the left, and their determination to hold onto power at all costs. And don’t discount the changes that have already been made in this country in the past 3 years and those that will be made if Obama retains power for another 4 years, because by then maybe this paranoid fantasy becomes less ridiculous.

24. #124
    On February 19th, 2012 at 8:27 pm, txvet2 said:

    Does that sound a little sour? Must be because the Celtics are getting their butts handed to them. Again. (Sigh)

25. #125
    On February 19th, 2012 at 9:01 pm, rightisright said:

    On February 18th, 2012 at 8:39 pm, OK_Loyalist said:

    Tks for the link, loved to see it, as mentioned above in numerous comments Santorum has to do this everytime he grants an interview, these scum bag liberal news commentators will interview no matter where he tells them to go, so bring it on.

26. #126
    On February 19th, 2012 at 11:18 pm, gmatt2003 said:

    I think I heard that Michigan is an “open” primary, like my home state of Wisconsin. (We really need to get rid of open primaries.) So the Dems can vote for whoever they think will be the weakest GOP candidate (ala McCain). I’m thinking they may go for Ron Paul, so don’t be surprised if he has good numbers.

    Who will they pick between Santorum or Romney? I’m guessing Romney, because of his HealthCare plan in Mass., and general inconsistencies, especially regarding abortion. So again, even if Romney wins Michigan by a slim margin, I suspect it will be because of the Dem voters.

    Maybe I’m just biased, but I think the Dems fear Santorum more. It’s the “bold contrasts” Reagan spoke of that they fear.There’s something about Santorum”s honesty and genuineness that they may not be able to defeat with negative ads, which is all they’ve got (besides Obama’s willing accomplices in the MSM, and nut-bag Left).

    We need a clear alternative to Obama, and I think Santorum’s the guy.

27. #127
    On February 19th, 2012 at 11:30 pm, gmatt2003 said:

    And I keep going back to Santorum’s “likeability”, which Reagan had, and the younger George Bush had. There’s something about likeability in a Presidential candidate that is hard to define, and difficult to defeat in an ad campaign.

    In one of the debates against Bush, Gore rose up out of his chair and seemed to almost physically challenge Bush. Bush didn’t move, and kind of laughed him off, like, “What the heck are you doing, Al?” I really think that was a turning point in the election.

    I really want to see a debate between Santorum and Obama (preferably without any teleprompters). I think Obama will be stumbling/fumbling/mumbling before the debate is over.

28. #128
    On February 20th, 2012 at 10:34 am, Speakup said:

    Rick has to be on the ball when Obama goes after him, a good example is his Face the Nation response to phony theology, of course the liberal in chief twisted his words, that’s going to happen every day, you can’t let them make it about supposedly going out of bounds, that’s just a lie, what’s true is climate change is a phony theology, let defending the President’s religion be their job.

    Losing the nuance challenge is a very big deal, articulate, articulate, articulate.

29. #129
    On February 20th, 2012 at 11:43 am, thejim said:

    I can dream, can’t I??
    Yes, you can!
    to borrow a catchphrase

30. #130
    On February 20th, 2012 at 3:29 pm, Blackstone said:

    On February 20th, 2012 at 10:34 am, Speakup said:

    Rick has to be on the ball when Obama goes after him, a good example is his Face the Nation response to phony theology, of course the liberal in chief twisted his words

    With ample help from that brazenly unprofessional AP hit piece. Basic journalistic practice is to identify where a particular quote comes from (an interview? a speech? the article doesn’t say). Instead, they just quoted him out of nowhere, with absolutely no indication whatsoever of what he was referring to. Totally disgusting.

    I really wish Fox’s website would boycott AP wire articles, or at least get into the habit of adding editor’s notes at the end to fill readers in on the rest of the story.

31. #131
    On February 20th, 2012 at 3:35 pm, Blackstone said:

    On February 19th, 2012 at 8:25 pm, txvet2 said:

    You’re making a couple of unwarranted assumptions here. For instance, that the other candidate actually survives to Inauguration Day, or isn’t incarcerated on some serious charges, or that the results aren’t overturned because of claims of voter fraud on the challenger’s part, or that CSPAN and the networks aren’t suddenly broadcasting nothing but pro-Obama propaganda as Congressional Republicans are arrested en masse, Fox Broadcasting is shut down by the FBI, and Obama’s loyalist troops guard DC as he takes the new inaugural oath proclaiming himself President for Life.

    If they could pull off something like that, then the GOP candidate wouldn’t stand a chance of beating him in the election in the first place.

    As far as I’m concerned, it would be a dream come true if they were to try to be that obvious about it, because it would very quickly lead to their demise. Talk about awakening a sleeping dragon.

32. #132
    On February 20th, 2012 at 10:41 pm, gmatt2003 said:

    I agree, Blackstone – the Libs/Dems are far too subtle (kind of like Satan) to attempt anything so blatant. They prefer to boil the water with the frog already in the pot.

    Regarding likeability, my wife just informed me she likes Santorum because he’s cute. (She’s also very Conservative.)

    Dear Michelle,

    Should I be jealous? Should I switch to Romney?

    signed,

    Troubled

    (not really)

33. #133
    On February 20th, 2012 at 11:27 pm, Blackstone said:

    On February 20th, 2012 at 10:41 pm, gmatt2003 said:

    Regarding likeability, my wife just informed me she likes Santorum because he’s cute.

    But he wants to TAKE AWAY HER BIRTH CONTROL!!1!11!

    (now that’s the kind of Dem tactic we need to be ready for)

34. #134
    On February 21st, 2012 at 1:04 am, happy2behere said:

    The headline above reads, Obama Setting Sights on Santorum. Why bother? He will verbally implode soon enough. There’s a reason he was not re-elected to his Senate seat.

    Not a huge fan of Romney either, but at least he is not using overtly denominational speech to ride the birth control diversion tide. To coin a phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

35. #135
    On February 21st, 2012 at 12:59 pm, rightwingrocker said:

    With Romney, Obama could have run on a campaign arguing “why do you want a cheap imitation of me when you can have the original?” With Santorum, he has to point out that Santorum is different.

    I consider that a major improvement. Of course, Santorum will be fighting both Obama and the GOP establishment like Joe Miller in Alaska.

    Agreed, Phil.

    He’s also going to have to fight a bunch of people on our side who heard his comments about working against “libertarian influence”.

    He won’t win without us, and the sooner he figures that out, the better. In the case of Romney, America loses regardless of the outcome of the election. At least with Santorum, there’s a fighting chance.

    RWR
    http://www.rightwingrocker.com

36. #136
    On February 21st, 2012 at 1:20 pm, rightwingrocker said:

    And BOTH Rombama and BJ Gingrich support the very issue that repeals the constitution by repealing the 1st amendment: the individual mandate.

    The First Amendment was already repealed with McLame-Feingold.

    The Bill of Rights has basically been repealed in its entirety. I-McCain-Feingold, II-Every gun law every passed, III-This is coming, as evidenced by recent powers the Republicans have awarded Obambi, IV-the IRS, V-Kelo v. New London, VI-Gitmo, VII-Gitmo, VIII-War on Drugs, IX-The entire primary process, X-The “Civil War”.

    There is no hope for America until the people wake up to the things that are going on in Washington, DC, and have been for over 100 years. If you aren’t willing to stand up and defend your rights, those who would take them from you are eager to succeed.

    RWR
    http://www.rightwingrocker.com

37. #137
    On February 21st, 2012 at 8:49 pm, gmatt2003 said:

    I’m a Protestant (Lutheran), and I think Santorum’s correct about Satan’s attacks against the Christian Church overall. I think the ELCA Lutheran Church is too Liberal, allowing for gay pastors, for example. (But that’s not an issue in our family’s church, so we’re still members.)

    I also don’t agree with the Catholic Church on many issues. (I’m a Lutheran). But Santorum’s point remains, that Satan is always trying to undermine the core values of the universal Christian Church.

    I don’t see a problem with him saying that. I think it may gain him more supporters.

    Side-note: I recommend C.S. Lewis’ book “The Screwtape Letters” in regards to Santorum’s remarks, and all of Lewis’ works. (I mean especially his “religious” works as apart from his Fantasy works such as “The Chronicles of Narnia.”) I believe Lewis was an Anglican, which would put him more in the Protestant camp, but it really doesn’t matter, as he explained in his introduction to his classic “Mere Christianity.”