Remarks And Asides

I’m not going to mention Mitt Romney’s tax returns or his enormous wealth or the fact that he is making Albert Pujols money without driving in a single run. I think the unemployed candidate has suffered enough. I mean, he’s already had to close his Swiss bank account, for God’s sake.

And now that we know he is a stockholder in Fannie and Freddie, he’ll have hell to pay from Freddie’s one-time lobbyist influence peddler historian lover Newt Gingrich.


I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don’t think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes,” said Mitt during last night’s debate.

No siree! Mitt’s not going to give and extra dollar to the country he loves, as some of it might end up supporting the troops, who will be expected to give the last full measure of devotion so Mitt can look tough when he gets in the White’s House.


Also during the debate, Mitt revealed his extraordinary clever and evolving immigration plan—those non-law-abiding folks will simply engage in “self-deportation.” Next up, Mitt’s plan to curb crime: Elect him president and folks will simply stumble down to the Mayberry jail, like a bunch of civic-minded Otis Campbells, and lock themselves up! Why didn’t Obama think of that one!


Stand-up comedian and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich complained about not having the crowd into his performance last night on NBC. He said he won’t do any more shows unless the audience is allowed to boo and cheer at all the wrong times.


Naturally, Newt blamed the media for stepping on his shtick:

We’re going to serve notice on future debates. The media doesn’t control free speech. People ought to be allowed to applaud if they want to.

The media doesn’t control free speech“? Is Newt calling for a government takeover of the press? If he starts with Fox, I’m all in!


Oliver Stone, moviemaker and conspiracy peddler, has said he would support Ron Paul over President Obama. Makes perfect sense to me.


This is what R.E.S.P.E.C.T. means to some members of the Republican Party:

Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., said on Monday he is boycotting President Obama’s State of the Union address.

In a tersely worded statement released by his office, Lamborn said he decided instead “to pass” on attending the speech on Tuesday night, though he will watch it on television and participate in a live chat hosted by Heritage Action for America.

“Congressman Lamborn does not support the policies of Barack Obama,” the statement said.

The statement also said:

Congressman Lamborn respects the President personally, and the office of the President.

I’m sure Mr. Obama will miss Mr. Lamborn, whoever he is.


Speaking of a lack of respect, Rick Santorum’s has a new excuse for not correcting a woman who said at one of his events that Obama was not “legally” the president and that “he is an avowed Muslim.” He told John Heilemann on Morning Joe this morning:

This was an elderly lady. She was there leaning on a cane; she was quite wobbly. I’m not going to sit there and slam an older lady because she has some way off, you know, bizarre beliefs.

So, the old gal gets the senior discount from a generous Rick Santorum. If only he would be as generous to future Medicare recipients. Santorum is one of the biggest backers of Paul Ryan’s plan to kill Medicare as we know it, which would eventually make folks like that wobbly woman wish Obama were legal.


Finally, Senator Rand Paul’s incident with the TSA in Nashville has his old man all hot and bothered: “The police state in this country is growing out of control,” said the elder Paul.  That coming from a man who wants to criminalize abortion. What a Grand Old Party!



  1. The GOP has gone completely bonkers. A candidate who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth who thinks $370,000 isn’t too much money and has no idea how others outside of his circle live, another who preached family values while jumping from bed-to-bed and now demands a full pardon, a goofy old man who does not know what he wants, and another God-fearing candidate who campaigns against the New Testament by wanting to do everything for the rich man at the expense of the poor man.. It appears as if they are wanting to out-crazy each other.

    It will be interesting who the Republican Party finally chooses to go against President Obama. One thing for sure, they are providing the Democratic Party with enough campaign fodder for the entire election cycle. It will be great to see Republican bashing Republican in the days leading to the election. Thanks, candidates!


    • I won’t feel safe until it’s too late for Jeb Bush to jump in.


      • ansonburlingame

         /  January 24, 2012


        Give me a break. NO ONE will remember his name is Jeb. They will only see the BUSH.

        I spent a couple of days with Jeb, long ago, when I was in the Navy. He was a private citizen but considering a run for governor of FL. The Asst Secretary of Navy for “something” ( Still Reagan years) wanted to go see submarines operate under a training environment in the Bahamas (AUTEC) I became his “horseholder” on the trip. We stopped in FL and picked up Jeb and the two only talked politics down to the ward level in FL.

        But I was impressed with Jeb. He seemed genuinely interested in the men serviing on submarines. We went to sea together on one and he asked the right questions. Smart guy that already spoke Spanish as a precursor to running in FL.

        Jeb Bush, Cristy (though he is iconoclastic as well), Daniels whom I know little about, and others might be better than what we have. But we have what we have.

        Now take your pick between Obama and…… Leave out Santorum and Paul and I know where I will vote, and you to do probably.



        • ..
          “Give me a break. NO ONE will remember his name is Jeb. They will only see the BUSH”

          Yes, that’s what I mean. That’s the only thing going for him. (Or
          against him, depending …


      • Helen,

        I know what you mean. It’s sort of like I never feel safe until the plane stops at the gate. I usually have to take a couple of Valiums for each flight, much like I will likely have to do frequently if the Republicans actually nominate someone who has a chance to win.



  2. ansonburlingame

     /  January 24, 2012

    To all,

    Let’s talk just a moment about “giving to one’s country”. I understand Mitt gave around $7 million to charities, much of it going to his church. That is MORE than he paid in taxes. Does that count, Duane? Or do you believe all the money going to the church was promoting some secret and sinister “cult”?

    Would you like to compare taxes and charitable giving between Romney and your last very rich candidate, Kerry? No comparison and Kerry “married his money” while Romney earned his legally. Hmmm?

    Do you want a man who was smart enought and forceful enough to earn a fortune on a “community organizer” and government employee all his life. Pretty clear choice it seems in terms of lifetime achievment. And the fortune earner gives 15% to charity, 5% more than even God asks for. Wonder what Santorum’s giving to church, community and country might compare in terms of percentage of income, including capital gains? Same with Newt.

    But you, Duane, know as well as I do that Romney’s taxes were full, complete and legal. His tax payments are not his “fault”. If you believe he paid to little then you better attack the tax codes and not the tax payers, rich, poor or inbetween.

    I still have heard NO proposals from you in that regard other than to repeal Bush cuts BUT ONLY ON THE RICH and sometime later go back to Clinton era tax rates for all.

    My what a bold approach???



  3. To all,

    I just “heard” that President Obama gave 1% of his income to charities last year. True or false, I do not know. Do you?

    Romney evidentialy gave 15% to church and charities.

    Now add up the dollars and/or total percent of income from Obama and Romney to see who has “done more for their country” by GIVING to help the “poor”?

    Then we can have another discussion about “empathy” if you like.



    • First, you need to stop getting your information from Obama-hating sources, like the kind who comment on your blog. You are embarrassing yourself even more than usual.

      You could look this up without help from me, but apparently that’s too much trouble. As a public service, though, and since you are so weirdly concerned with it, here are the facts, according to Bloomberg Businessweek:

      The Romneys donated about 16.4 percent of their adjusted gross income of $42.5 million in the two-year period, according to their 2010 tax returns and an estimate for 2011 taxes. The 2010 return shows $3 million in charitable contributions, and the 2011 estimate shows $4 million.

      About 4 million of that total for two years went to the “cultic” Mormon church (not to the “poor”), which emphasizes regular tithing, and for a man worth up to $250 million, that’s not exactly pin-a-medal-on-his-chest heroics.

      As for Obama, what you wrote likely came from a Fox Nation source:

      Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.

      The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.

      The story went on to compare those old tax returns—when the Obamas were making chump change compared to the kind of money Romney has made for years—to Romney’s 2010 and 2011 (estimated) returns. (We don’t know, you see, what Romney’s returns show for the same years—2000 through 2006—because he hasn’t let us peek.)

      The truth about the Obama’s 2010 tax return is that the Obama’s—their net worth in 2010, by the way, was $7.3 million, which is about what Romney “earned” in four months—earned $1,728,096 and paid 26.8% of that (about twice as much as Mitt in terms of percentage) in federal taxes. Their charitable giving amounted to 14% of their income ($245,075).  Now, instead of giving most of their money to a cultic church, do you want to know where their largest donation went? Huh? Okay, I’ll tell you: The Fisher House Foundation.  You know what they do? Huh? I’ll let them tell you:

      The Fisher House program is a unique private-public partnership that supports America’s military in their time of need. The program recognizes the special sacrifices of our men and women in uniform and the hardships of military service by meeting a humanitarian need beyond that normally provided by the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.

      And by the bleeping way, Newt Gingrich gave $81,133 of his $3,142,066 income to charity. That’s about 2 1/2 percent.

      You and Geoff are getting more pathetic by the day.



      • RDG,

        Thanks for setting the record straight regarding the Obama’s charitable donations. In comic book jargon the reply would have a POW! or WHAM! next to the figurative bottom spanking.


        You really should do just a little “research” before “filling your hands.”; unless your hands are filled with something besides a six shooter.


  4. To all again,

    The internet is now filled with tax comparisons between Obama and Romney. Total taxes and charitable contributions for Romney in 2011 is estimated to be 42% of his income.

    Here is another internet comparison as well.

    “Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.

    The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.

    Romney charitable contributions

    Tax year Taxable income Charitable donations Donations as % of income
    2010 $21.7 million $2.98 million 13.73%
    2011 (est) $20.9 million $4 million 19.14%”

    Cut it however you want to do so in terms of total dollars or percent of taxable income. The differences between the two families is STARK, in my view. Note that Obama’s income before he became famous was around $200,000 per year (2000 through 2004). Wonder how a community organizer made that kind of money????



  5. ansonburlingame

     /  January 26, 2012

    To all,

    See how useless it is to argue numbers like this. EVERYONE can spin them however they like.

    Look at it this way, from the top.

    Romney has paid, as a percentage of income or total dollars in taxes and charitable giving than Obama, far more in either case. His 2011 estimate of all taxation and charitable giving is 42% of his taxable income.

    So who has “given more for his country”, Romney or Obama? But then again, so what. We are trying to elect a leader, not just a “big giver”.

    But just say what you really want to say. Romney is too rich and thus should not be elected President. He is not being fair making all that money, right!!



%d bloggers like this: