Why Mitt Romney's Star is Rising

I think the Republican Party can, and will get over these issues and support Romney. We need him to restore faith in our economy and government again. After 4 years of the SuperAbortion President with NO church, anything is better than nothing. It seems that Obama can't seem to find a church that "moved" him the way Reverend Wright did. That tells us a great deal about who we have up there now.

During our Country's founding Protestant and Roman Catholic didn't consider non-Trinitarianism to be "real Christianity." How many times have we heard evangelicals claim Mormons are not "Christians" even though they call themselves "Christians"?

A similar dynamic existed in the Founding era, but with theological Unitarians like Locke, Newton, Milton, Clarke, Priestley, Price, John. Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Madison and many others. I think the key Founding Fathers and the philosophers and theologians they followed probably thought of themselves as "Christians", but non-Trinitarian Christians.

Mitt Romney is a non-Trinitarian Christian. If Washington, Adams, Madison and Jefferson were acceptable as president, why isn't Mitt Romney? Remember Article Six states that no religious test should exist for any national office. Didn't Minnesota elect a Muslim and an atheistic pornographer to Congress?

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/01/richard_price.php

http://MormonsAreChristian.blogspot.com

Gina,you mean that only Republicans who r rich are filthy and only people, who believe Jesus is who the bible claims Him to be, are bigots.Ohhh,I see.R u sure u have enuff room left there to be using the word bigot?

PUNDIT PAYOLA


Pundit payola:
It is a catch phrase to describe the practice of paying commentators and news pundits to promote points of view, programs or ideologies determined by the sponsors.

Antoin "Tony" Rezko Is A Chicago Businessman With Investments In Both Real Estate And Fast Food Restaurants. (David Jackson and John Chase, "Rezko's Life A Story Of Pizza And Politics," Chicago Tribune, 10/12/06)

Rezko Was Convicted Of Wire And Mail Fraud, Money Laundering, And Aiding And Abetting Bribery. (Bob Secter and Jeff Coen, "Rezko Convicted," Chicago Tribune, 6/5/08)

"Antoin ‘Tony' Rezko And Stuart Levine Used Rezko's Influence With Public Officials To Sustain Their Scheme To Collect Kickbacks From Firms That Wanted State Business, Prosecutors Charged." (David Jackson and John Chase, "Rezko's Life A Story Of Pizza And Politics," Chicago Tribune, 10/12/06)
Eleven Low-Income Housing Buildings Located In Obama's State Senate District And Owned By Rezko's Company, Rezmar, Were "Falling Apart" And Going Into Foreclosure. (Tim Novak, "Obama And His Rezko Ties," Chicago Sun-Times, 4/23/07)

Rezko Courted Local Politicians Who Controlled Decisions That Affected His Business Efforts, Giving At Least $385,000 Since 1994 And Bundling "Millions Of Dollars" For Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-IL). (David Jackson and John Chase, "Rezko's Life A Story Of Pizza And Politics," Chicago Tribune, 10/12/06)

Rezko Was Among Obama's First Political Supporters When Obama First Ran For Public Office. (Christopher Drew and Mike McIntire, "An Obama Patron And Friend Until An Indictment In Illinois," The New York Times, 6/14/07)

Obama Paid $300,000 Less Than The Asking Price For His Home, While Rezko's Wife Paid Full Price For A Vacant Lot Next Door On The Very Same Day. (Tim Novak, "Obama And His Rezko Ties," Chicago Sun-Times, 4/23/07)

The Seller Of Obama's Home "Wanted To Sell Both Properties At The Same Time." (Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz, "The Rezko Connection," ABC News' "The Blotter" Blog, abcnews.go.com, 1/10/08)
Obama Later Purchased A Portion Of Rezko's Land For $104,500; It Was Valued At $40,500. (Peter Slevin, "Obama Says He Regrets Land Deal With Fundraiser," The Washington Post, 12/17/06)
"As A State Senator, Barack Obama Wrote Letters To City And State Officials Supporting His Political Patron Tony Rezko's Successful Bid To Get More Than $14 Million From Taxpayers To Build Apartments For Senior Citizens." (Tim Novak, "Obama's Letters For Rezko," Chicago Sun-Times, 6/13/07)

http://www.barackbook.com/Profiles/TonyRezko.htm

Pundit, the previous thread about Obama's increasing jobless claims was cut short before I could comment on your ridiculous claim that GW Bush spent more heavily than Obama.

Your post read:

"It is great that w's final FY '09 whopper ends 9/30/09 http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php?year=2009

Thankfully POTUS Obama's first budget including everything i.e. Health Care, Renewable Energy, 2 w wars, tax cuts for 95%, etc is -$1.011T less than w's record final whopper!"


The kicker is that if you actually read the historical tables on the link you provided, you'd have realized that the actual difference is only $40 Billion, rather than the $1.1 Trillion you claim. Further, $680 Billion of the FY 2009 budget (that you're attributing entirely to GW Bush) was actually signed for by Obama himself. $269.7 Billion from the "stimulus" bill, and $ 410 Billion from the Omnibus bill. That much was spent even before his first official budget.

The Omnibus bill, by the way, is spending that your drunken - sailor- spending Democratic Congressmen knew was wasteful and would never be signed for by GW Bush. They waited for "I'll sign anything as long as it involves spending money we don't have" Obama to take office to pass it across the President's desk. Of course it was signed without delay.

Obama's FY 2010 budget, which you seem to consider frugal, is already well above any spending GWB was ever involved in, and he did actually fight two wars with that money, not true with Obama, now that Iraq is off the table for 2010. Still, Obama's 2010 budget still has to figure in the cost related to the cap and trade tax (if it passes) , and the trillion dollar health care bill that will never be "budget neutral". It also doesn't figure in the decreasing government revenue due to the ever-rising job losses - fewer people paying taxes to support this record-high spending.

I'll never claim that GWB was a fiscal conservative, but I'll also never sit idly by while you try to convince people that Obama is fiscally conservative either.

I think it's reasonable to place links to official websites to bolster your arguments. We're all here to think and learn and teach, and it's good to have the facts. In the future, however, I would urge you to read the data at the site you quote before spewing your poorly thought-out partisan falsehoods.

always multiple unamed sources... if you actually have facts ..lets ee them.. why it's obvious because the windows are the same... gee I guess that means all the houses built with windows from the same supplier/manufacturer are part of this supposed graft...

you must have studied Alinsky... in the absence of facts just keep spewing innuendo as if it's fact... by the time the facts come out they are on the inside back page while the innuendo was front page and the damage is done...

present facts or call it for what it is 'speculation.. by the way there's a source that says the feds will soon come knocking on your door for malfescence.

Folks,
Welcome to Pundit's world were diversion from the truth and undocumented drivel run rampant. He's a joke. A very pathetic wretch who craves domineering through belittlement and insults. Cyberbully extraordinaire with the zeal of asphalt. A real asset to the GOP cause.

Well Pundit, went back to 60 minutes and looked at every frickin story they had and have not found the Wasilla story yet. It it was ever there, it sure isn't now.

@ Kathy: Please learn how to use the Google index in the future or I may require Carbon trading credits up front!

"When Palin signed an operating budget this spring authorizing roughly $11 billion (while Vetoing $250M in NEEDED & APPROVED public projects) in spending — more than $16,000 for every man, woman and child in Alaska"

please also note that Alaskan's PER PERSON pay an average of $3900 in US Taxes, they receive BACK nearly $14,000 in US TAX MONEY PER PERSON! so you & I paid for her crap!

1)http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7280 KA Ching! Notice the house Windows? they sure do look like hockey Rink windows LMAO!

Vacant empty BS story ttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/03/politics/main5132151.shtml I too no longer see the 60 min story online in the first page Results 1 - 10 of about 35,200 as I saw it on TV. These story's DO all tell the same CONFIRMED facts from different sources! You never heard of any? these stories before? They were in news reports & newspapers nationally & globally!

2)Highlights From Murdoch's WSJ re Wasilla Sports complex boondoogle (Story date Sept. 2008)

"Ms. Palin cited her mayoral duties as partial evidence of her executive experience. Dianne Woodruff, a Wasilla city councilwoman and critic of Ms. Palin's performance, agreed.

"If people are going to be voting on her based on her experience as Wasilla's mayor, then they should know how she did in the job," Ms. Woodruff said, "the good, the bad and the ugly wsj.com" Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A5

"The only catch was that the city began building roads and installing utilities for the project before it had unchallenged title to the land. The misstep led to years of litigation and at least $1.3 million in extra costs for a small municipality with a small budget. What was to be Ms. Palin's legacy has turned into a financial mess that continues to plague Wasilla"

"Hockey is much loved in Wasilla, and Ms. Palin, whose son was a star player, wanted to build an indoor rink, with a track, basketball courts and soccer field. In the late 1990s, the city sought a 145-acre parcel owned by the Nature Conservancy, which wanted to sell the land to buy more environmentally sensitive property elsewhere. City officials negotiated a price of $126,000. Months passed without the city's securing a signed purchase agreement, according to the city's attorney, Tom Klinkner of Birch, Horton, Bittner & Cherot.

At the same time, Gary Lundgren, a Fairbanks real-estate investor, was in talks with the Nature Conservancy to buy a larger adjacent property. As discussions between the environmental group and the city dragged on, Mr. Lundgren said, he purchased the entire site for about $1 million.

The city sued Mr. Lundgren and the Nature Conservancy, arguing that Wasilla had had a deal. In 2001, a federal district court judge ruled in Wasilla's favor. Mr. Lundgren appealed, but the city believed it would prevail, according to Mr. Klinkner.

Ms. Palin marched ahead, making the public case for a sales-tax increase and $14.7 million bond issue to pay for the sports center, which was to feature a running track, basketball courts and a hockey rink. At the time, the city's annual budget was about $20 million. In a March 2002 referendum,

@residents approved the mayor's plan by a 20-vote margin, 306 to 286. The city cleared roads, installed utilities and made preparations to build. Hmmmmmmmm!

Later that year, Ms. Palin's final one as mayor, the federal judge reversed his own decision and ruled that the property rightfully belonged to Mr. Lundgren. Wasilla had never signed the proper papers, the court ruled."

SARAH's LEGAL BILLS MOUNT EVEREST over 10 YEARS! from her inaction. (Story date Sept. 2008)

"Mr. Lundgren said he had offered to give smaller parcels to the city free of charge, but the city held out for a larger tract. The former chief of the city finance department, Ted Leonard, says he doesn't recall such an offer.

After Ms. Palin left office, the city decided to take 80 acres of Mr. Lundgren's property through eminent domain. An Alaska court confirmed the city's right to do so and ordered that an arbitrator determine the appropriate price.

Last year, the arbitrator ordered the city to pay $836,378 for the 80-acre parcel, far more than the $126,000 Wasilla originally thought it would pay for a piece of land 65 acres larger. The arbitrator also determined that the city owed Mr. Lundgren $336,000 in interest. Wasilla's legal bill since the eminent domain action has come to roughly $250,000 so far, according to Mr. Klinkner, the city attorney.

Mr. Lundgren has appealed the decision, arguing that the arbitrator should have awarded him more interest. "It has been 10 years; it's just insane," said Mr. Lundgren, who now lives in Panama. "All [Ms. Palin] had to do was close the transaction."

The McCain-Palin campaign referred questions about the sports complex to Mr. Leonard, the former city finance chief. He blamed the Nature Conservancy for dealing with two different potential buyers at one time. "That's what caused the confusion," he said.

"At the time, with the information she had, [Ms. Palin] made the right decision," Mr. Leonard said. "But you know what? Litigation happens." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122065537792905483.html

3) More BAD News as sports complex losses MOUNT From Alaska's ADN: "The operating cost and revenue picture is less rosy. The complex saw a loss of just over $145,000 in fiscal year 2004, according to a 2005 financial report from the Wasilla finance department. Preliminary numbers show a loss of just over $212,000 in fiscal year 2005. Deputy city finance director Susan Colligan said an auditor must confirm those numbers.

It's tough to make a straight comparison between the two years, Colligan said. The complex only operated four months in fiscal year 2004. Costs were higher in 2005 but so were revenues, she said.

Urban and Keller said they hope to close that gap. City finance director Ted Leonard said the shortfall should be down to $120,000 by June 30, 2006." http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/168047.html

4) Sarah's Record? "updated 11:46 a.m. ET, Sun., Oct . 12, 2008 ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican nominee for vice president, bills herself as a fiscal conservative. But that can be a relative term when you're governor of a state gushing with oil money.

When Palin signed an operating budget this spring authorizing roughly $11 billion in spending — more than $16,000 for every man, woman and child in Alaska — she told state lawmakers she had three goals: "To slow the growth of government, live within our means and save for the future."

Palin vetoed more than $250 million in projects from the public works budget around the same time, the second consecutive year she angered legislators by cutting their pet capital projects." (ADD H) ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27148089/

@ PHIL: No wonder you cons never balanced any budgets ever, I should have BET you the PROVEN difference vs. your fantasy claims LMAO!

10/08 FY 2009 = $5.347 Trillion Budget & Deficit TOTAL
10/08 FY 2009 = $4.328 Trillion Budget & Deficit TOTAL

!)POTUS Obama first budget Difference IS PROVEN to be -$1.019 Trillion LESS!

Gee I wonder why Lush, BECK, O' Liely, InHannity, FAUX, RNC, GOP, etc! has NOT published or commented on this?

Math must be too tough for you cons LMAO! Ka Ching!

NOTE: If I or Obama SPENT $30T+ from 2001-2009, I guarantee you that MORE than 1.9M jobs would be created Vs. 22.7M created 8 years earlier with 1/2 as much spent, negating the need for any stimulus REPAIR, while 3M legal workers enter the US job market every year!

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php?year=2008
Displays 5 year intervals including:

10/08 FY 2009: $6.434.5T (US FEDERAL BUDGET portion 54.4%
IS $3.506 Trillion) Deficit -1.841T US FEDERAL GRAND TOTAL = $5.347 Trillion

10/09 FY 2010: $6.171.2T (US FEDERAL BUDGET portion 49.89% IS $3.078 Trillion) Deficit -1.250T US FEDERAL Budget GRAND TOTAL = $4.328 Trillion

1)POTUS Obama first budget Difference IS PROVEN to be -$1.019 Trillion LESS!

< -yr Values in $ billion
(Click year for details) +yr >
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total Spending 4,704 4,900 5,283 6,434 6,171
Federal Deficit 248 161 459 1,841 1,258
Gross Public Debt 10,708 11,339 12,460 15,495 17,246
Health Care 784 861 909 1,042 1,126
Education 787 799 838 870 972
Defense 622 654 731 823 873
Welfare 411 418 483 573 605

@ PHIL: JUST to be REAL CLEAR the second lower & lesser line entry BASED on US FEDERAL BUDGET DATA should have read:

No wonder you cons never balanced any budgets ever, I should have BET you the PROVEN difference vs. your fantasy claims LMAO!

10/08 FY 2009 = $5.347 Trillion Budget & Deficit TOTAL
10/09 FY 2010 = $4.328 Trillion Budget & Deficit TOTAL

!)POTUS Obama first budget Difference IS PROVEN to be -$1.019 Trillion LESS!

The proven MATH is for you PHIL!
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php?year=2008
Displays 5 year intervals including:

10/08 FY 2009: $6.434.5T (US FEDERAL BUDGET portion 54.4%
IS $3.506 Trillion) Deficit -1.841T US FEDERAL GRAND TOTAL = $5.347 Trillion

10/09 FY 2010: $6.171.2T (US FEDERAL BUDGET portion 49.89% IS $3.078 Trillion) Deficit -1.250T US FEDERAL Budget GRAND TOTAL = $4.328 Trillion

1)POTUS Obama first budget Difference IS PROVEN to be -$1.019 Trillion LESS!

The nation certainly did not need any fiscal repair from Clinton's administration as 22.7 M jobs were created with $15T yielding: 6 balanced Budgets, 4 consecutive surpluses 0 Iraq & Kosovo combat deaths all despite 2 wars.

Boehner lover w did however; never balance any budgets, brought back the Annual Deficit, doubled the National debt while borrowing & spending more than all other presidents Combined at $30T+, creating the least amount of jobs 1.9M while killing 1.3M unarmed Iraqi women, children & 5000+ US troop battlefield deaths, plus many more unreported helicopter in flight & hospital deaths and left this replicon failure as Gallup illustrates:

Images of the Parties Among All Americans

For the entire U.S. population, the top four categories of images that come to mind first when Americans think about the Republican Party are:

* Unfavorable
* Conservative
* Favorable
* (Tie) Lost their way and Caters to the rich

The top four categories of images of the Democratic Party are:

* Liberal
* Favorable
* For the people/working, middle, lower class
* Socially conscious/Progressive

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120815/Republicans-Down-Own-Party.aspx

"When Palin signed an operating budget this spring authorizing roughly $11 billion in spending — more than $16,000 for every man, woman and child in Alaska" while Spending US FEDERAL TAX money $14,000 PER PERSON although Alaska residents pay just $3,900 per PERSON!

BAD math OR FRAUD? WE will very soon find out after SARAH'S last day in office on TUESDAY? 7/28/09 LMAO!
Don't do the crime(S) unless you cons can do the time!

Pundit,

Boy, you can really twist numbers, can't you? Despite your creative accounting, the link you provided very clearly lists the following:

FY 2009 Total Federal Spending $3.997 Trillion
FY 2010 Total Federal Spending $3.591 Trillion

The actual value budgeted to be spent by the President is as follows:

FY 2009 (GWB) estimate $3.107 Trillion
FY 2010 (Obama) estimate $3.091 Trillion

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2010_0.html#usgs302

You again fail to remind us that the "Total Federal Spending" for 2009 ( which you are attributing entirely to Bush) actually includes $680 Billion that Obama added during his first few months in office. That doesn't reflect Bush's budget, but it does reflect FY 2009 spending, which is what you're counting. Gotta get your numbers straight.

The other factor you conveniently fail to mention is that the economy was humming along much better when the FY 2009 budget was originally created (unemployment rate 5-6%). More people working and paying taxes. Obama tanks the stock market every time he or Geithner discuss the economy in front of a camera. Unemployment rate is now 9.5 percent, steadily climbing, fewer people paying taxes. The spending continues unabated, actually accelerated. Obama's solution is to tax businesses and "those who can afford it", guaranteeing that the rising unemployment will continue.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

It is interesting that Obama's budget estimate Federal revenue receipts to be $270 Billion more next year than this year, despite rising unemployment rates. Where does that money come from? It comes from the people who would otherwise be using the money for hiring. The result is quite simple to see, transferring that money to Gov't coffers rather than employee paychecks reduces private sector spending and further slows the economy.

Your problem is that you're trying to say that Obama will be successful because you think he's better than Bush. Whether you believe that or not, you have to get past the Bush years, because they're gone. Obama never ran against Bush, and never will.

This entire administration (Democratic run from top to bottom) understands that the chance of reelection is dismal if the economy remains this way until reelection time next year. If you believe that the stimulus money will truly "stimulate" the economy, then you have to also believe that the plan to delay release of the majority of the funds until election 2010 is a political move advancing the agenda of the Democratic party over the interests of unemployed and underemployed Americans.

The proven MATH was for you PHIL as it proved your ineptitude at both math as well as honesty! Note the realized GW Hoover DEFICIT's Phil, including FY 09.

Your BOGUS claims neglects many things including; GW Hovers exploding deficits & Wars as neither were POTUS Obama's obligation when FY 2009 began on 10/01/08 LMAO!

You also neglect the 'backend budget landmines' left by BOGUS POTUS Worst:43! as FY 09 ends on 9/30/09!

"10/08 FY 2009: $6.434.5T (US FEDERAL BUDGET portion 54.4%
IS $3.506 Trillion) Deficit -1.841T US FEDERAL GRAND TOTAL = $5.347 Trillion"

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php?year=2008
Displays 5 year intervals including:

10/08 FY 2009: $6.434.5T (US FEDERAL BUDGET portion 54.4%
IS $3.506 Trillion) Deficit -1.841T US FEDERAL GRAND TOTAL = $5.347 Trillion ending 9/30/09!

10/09 FY 2010: $6.171.2T (US FEDERAL BUDGET portion 49.89% IS $3.078 Trillion) Deficit -1.250T US FEDERAL Budget GRAND TOTAL = $4.328 Trillion.

It's the most ridiculous accounting I've seen lately. You're justifying your point by adding the "Total Government Spending" (which, by the way, includes state and local spending, unless you couldn't grasp that part) with the "Federal Deficit". Not only that, you can't differentiate the fact that the numbers from FY 2009 actually include $680 Billion of Obama's money, and the 2010 budget is an "estimate" which assumes that the government will be able to cover 50 million new Americans' health care costs for free. Your books are cooked, and so is your goose.

It's ridiculous to compare a revised, largely appropriated federal spending breakdown which includes spending from two Presidents (2009) with a pie-in-the-sky budget estimate (2010). This issue may well be worth debating in 2012, which is when the final figures will be in - just in time for Presidential campaign season.

I thought I'd spell that out. I don't believe that it'll change your mind, as you've decided on the answer before seeing the facts, but just to point out to other casual readers that you're twisting the numbers again.

Have a good Sunday and enjoy your freedom of speech that I (former US Marine) gladly did my small role in defending....And do try to be civil