Countdown Clocks

Countdown Clocks

Tweets by @JGibsonDem
Posts tagged "Rick Santorum"

h/t: Peter Montgomery at RWW

thepoliticalfreakshow:

image
image

Tony Perkins fancies himself to be a GOP presidential candidate kingmaker, so it will be interesting to see if any not entirely crazy Republicans will join the above careening clown car crowded with the cavalcade of crackpots who failed in 2012, some of whom (Paul, Perry, Santorum) are expected to make a 2016 run. Ted Cruz won last year’s Values Voters Summit presidential straw poll with 42% of the vote, the largest margin ever seen in that poll’s history and light years ahead of runners-up Frothy Mix and Ben Carson, who barely landed in the double digits.

thatwasfunwhileitlasted:

randomfanboy:

thatwasfunwhileitlasted:

thepoliticalfreakshow:

It hasn’t even been 48 hours since the Supreme Court handed down their decision in US v. Hobby Lobby, but Rick Santorum and his film company EchoLight Studios announced today that they’re making a documentary about the decision, to be released in September. Even better: They already have a trailer for it. It’s like they were anticipating that this would happen!

Okay, technically, this film has been in the works for months: One Generation Away: The Erosion of Religious Liberty, will “makes the case that the free expression of Christianity has lately been taking a backseat to free speech, government expansion and political correctness,” according to The Hollywood Reporter. Hobby Lobby is one of several federal and state court cases that will tackle this issue (expect Gay Cake to make an appearance), but considering that pro-life conservatives count this as a huge victory, it will probably be the focus of the entire film.

Santorum is CEO and Chairman of EchoLight Studios, which is responsible for these films.

Watch the trailer below via EchoLight Studios, and keep your eyes peeled: Mike Huckabee and Ronald Reagan make super special appearances…

[h/t AV Club]

So… a documentary about “The Erosion of Religious Liberty” which will presumably focus on… religious right-wingers winning a court case to allow a for-profit corporation to have a religion. Also, I’m pretty sure it will not address the liberty of Muslims or those who practice religions not of the Book.

how do i not have this in my GIF reactions folder

(via thepoliticalfreakshow)

Appearing on C-SPAN this afternoon, former Pennsylvania Senator and perennial presidential candidate Rick Santorum, told host Tucker Carlson that not all countries were ready for democracy and that the Founding Fathers were right when they limited voting rights during the creation of the United States for the sake of “continuity.”

Responding to a question from Carlson about whether it would be good for the United States if countries like Saudi Arabia or Jordan became democracies, Santorum stated that it wasn’t a matter of whether “this is better for us or not.”

“I think the ideal and goal is a good one. The question is: how do you get there?,” Santorum explained. “And how long do you take, and what measures do you take. And, you mentioned Egypt, I don’t think Egypt was ready for elections.”

In 2012 Egyptian voters elected Mohamed Morsi, a candidate backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, considered by some to be a terrorist organization.

Santorum noted that one need look at history of the U.S.

“Were we ready for an election when the United States was formed to have everybody in the United States vote? Well, our Founders didn’t think so, ” he stated. “They limited the people who could vote in an election. Now you could say that’s horrible, that’s terrible. Well, maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. But it was a decision that was made to make sure that there was some continuity and stability within the government that was consistent with the values the government was founded upon.”

At the time of the first U.S. Elections, only white men with property could vote.

Returning to Egypt, Santorum continued, “We can’t go out and say the objective is a free election, that should never have happened. Democracy is something that comes when it is appropriate to come.”

Santorum conceded that it may take “100 years.”

From the 06.29.2014 edition of CSPAN2’s BookTV:

h/t: Tom Boggioni at The Raw Story

thepoliticalfreakshow:

image

Today is the day in which the National Organization for Marriage tries to turn a page on a thus far disastrous year for the organization and get back to its original goal of denying gays the right to marry while pretending to be the “victims” of “lgbt oppression.”

In Washington, NOM will be holding its March4Marriage, a sure-to-be astroturfed event in which anti-gay spokespeople, such as Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum will attempt to trick Americans into believing that marriage is in danger from “the gays.”

All of those involved in this monstrosity will also claim that they are not bigoted for wanting to deny the gay community the right to marry and that their opposition to marriage equality isn’t fueled by a personal animus of the lgbt community.

It’s going to take a lot of chutzpah on their part as well as a hope that we will forget the homophobic acts which NOM has committed over the years to supposedly save the “sacred union between a man and a woman.”

Good luck on that last one, particularly as I present Five Acts of Anti-Gay Bigotry NOM Wants You 

to Forget:

5. NOM has attempted to create ‘fake victims’ of marriage equality -  On several occasions, NOM has tried to create a narrative that marriage equality will lead to the unfair demonization of those opposing it, only to have the narrative blow up in its face.  In 2011, NOM began what it called the Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance  This was an attempt to spotlight Americans who had their religious liberties and rights threatened simply for opposing marriage equality.  It failed badly. Equality Matters, in 2012, had this to say about the spotlighted examples:

 … out of NOM’s nine Marriage ADA stories, three weren’t about marriage, three were from a different country, and zero demonstrated an instance of actual “defamation.” It should come as no surprise that NOM had such a difficult time finding any compelling evidence that opponents of marriage equality were having their “rights and dignity” threatened and denied. NOM’s “gays as bullies” narrative has already been exposed and rejected by a number of judges and courts across the country.


In addition, in 2013, the site Politifact gave NOM’s Rhode Island branch a “pants on fire”(which means basically you are lying out of your ass) rating for a claim it trotted out that religious groups have been forced to hold same-sex marriages in their facilities.  

4. NOM has implied that gays want to use marriage equality to “indoctrinate” children - No anti-gay group’s arsenal is complete without the claim that gays want to “recruit” or “indoctrinate” children. And NOM is no different:

image


In 2011 during its failed campaign to keep marriage equality from coming to New York, NOM exploited the fear that gays want to use marriage equality to “indoctrinate” children even though Politifact had earlier that year gave NOM a false rating for a similar claim it made in Rhode Island.

3. Folks behind NOM helped in creating a hideously flawed study about same-sex households 

From the Regnerus Fallout:

On June 10, 2012, Social Science Research’s website went live with “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” written by University of Texas at Austin associate sociology professor Mark Regnerus …The intention of Regnerus’ study – which was funded to the tune of nearly $800,000 by the conservative Witherspoon Institute and Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation – was to present the large, random, population-based study that Marks lamented was missing from the academic literature on same-sex parenting. And to the delight of the religious right community, Regnerus claimed his study found negative outcomes for the children who said one of their parents engaged in a “same-sex romantic relationship” at some point during their childhoods.


However, Regnerus’s study contained a multitude of errors, including the fact that it did not actually compared married gay parents to married heterosexual parents and Regnerus admitted that the study did not establish a connection between negative outcomes and same-sex parenting.

But the largest problem Regenrus’s study had was its funders, particularly Princeton professor Robert George. Again, from the Regnerus Fallout:

Though the Witherspoon Institute and Mark Regnerus have denied that George was directly involved in any aspect of the New Family Structures Study, George’s seat on the board of directors on the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation indicates he was likely  part of the decision by the foundation to help fund it. The Bradley Foundation’s board of directors, which directs the foundation’s funds, gave at least $90,000 to the Regnerus study in 2011. Additionally, George’s name was mentioned in a fundraising letter to the Bradley Foundation, penned by Witherspoon President Luis Tellez: “We are very grateful for The Bradley Foundation’s consideration of this request. Mark Regnerus, Robby George, Brad Wilcox, and I would be happy to work with the Bradley Foundation to identify other funding partners,” Tellez wrote. George helped draft the original Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman that was first introduced to Congress in 2002 but has never passed.


One more thing. George is also one of the co-founders of NOM.

In addition to possibly helping to fund the Regnerus’s study George put together a marketing campaign to run as soon as it was published. This campaign included NOM and several NOM-connected groups.

All of this brought up questions with regards to Regnerus’s partiality and his study was rebuked by over 200 researchers, the sociology department of his own university, and finally a Michigan federal judge, Bernard Friedman. Earlier this year, Friedman not only struck down a law barring marriage equality in Michigan, but he was especially brutal to Regnerus’s study and to Regnerus himself:

"The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 ‘study’ was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it ‘essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society’ and which ‘was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study.’ … While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his impartiality as a researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged."


2. NOM participated in anti-gay efforts in foreign countries - Unfortunately in spite of the rebukes, Regnerus’s work played a huge role in countries around the world establishing harsh anti-gay laws, particularly in Russia. NOM President Brian Brown spoke in Russia after that country (thanks to the Regnerus study) passed a law against supposed “gay propaganda,” which was actually a law created to silence the lgbt Russians in general. According to People for the American Way in its report on how groups like NOM were marketing homophobia worldwide, Brown spoke about denying adoption rights to gays:

"But we are now convinced, having heard the presentations of our French brothers and sisters, that we are talking about very serious problems indeed. We are talking about violations of rights, we are talking about the rights and problems of children in their education. We should not shy away from this and should not forget about it and create an illusion for ourselves. A reconsideration of the definition and understanding of marriage is in fact a real threat to rights. Very soon after a law was passed that legalized same-sex marriage in the state of Massachusetts, we saw that religious organizations were closing down, religious organizations that dealt with adoptions and that did not support adoption by same-sex families. They were closing one after another. We have actually seen that in some schools, they are talking to children about homosexuality, but in fact they don’t have the right to learn about a lot of things like that until a certain age. …I think that this visit, the invitation to visit Russia, will enable the development of this movement around the world. We will band together, we will defend our children and their normal civil rights."


1. NOM attempts play the LGBT and African-American community against one another - Don’t be surprised. You knew this was going to be number one. In 2012, court documents proved that NOM was deliberately playing the gay and black communities against one another. From a post I published that year:

According to a court document that was uploaded online, NOM specificallyworked to drive a wedge between the black and gay community on the subject of marriage equality: 

According to page 11 of this document called Marriage: $20 Million Strategy for Victory
3. Not a Civil Right Project 

The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks - two key democratic constituencies. We aim to find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; to develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; and to provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party.

NOM has portrayed whatever African-American opposition to marriage equality its spotlighted as spontaneous attempts by leaders and members of the black community to keep its civil rights legacy from supposedly being “tainted” by a comparison to gay equality.


In other words, NOM was attempting to exploit the difference of opinion that some in the African-American had about their civil rights movement being declared as similar to the lgbt equality movement.  You will notice that the document said NOM would “find, equip, and energize” African-Americans spokespeople against marriage equality. The organization has done this in three examples:

Patrick Wooden - In 2012 during its successful attempt to ban marriage equality in North Carolina, NOM teamed up with Wooden, head of the Upper Room Church of God in Christ in Raleigh, NC, for outreach in the African-American community. He also said the followingabout gay men during the campaign:

The God of the Bible made the human sperm, the God of the Bible designed it and it was not designed to be emptied into an area that is filled with feces, there is nothing for it to germinate with, it will most certainly mean the extinction of the human race. My belief is that if the medical community would just step forward and just would share with the American people what happens to the male anus, the problems that homosexuals have with their rectums, the damage that is done, the operations that are needed to sew up their bodies if you will, and how many of the men don’t even give these stitches time to heal before they are back out there practicing that wicked behavior. Some are bleeders, men who are not turned off by ingesting the feces of other men.


Harry Jackson -  People for the American Way has called Jackson the "Point Man for the Wedge Strategy."  PFAW was mainly talking about how religious right groups use Jackson to gain credibility into the black community. NOM in particular has attempted to use Jackson on several occasions. From a post I published in 2012:

According to Mother Jones magazine, Jackson has received $20,000 from the National Organization for Marriage’s “education fund” for his efforts to exploit the opinions of those in the black community who do not agree with marriage equality.

In addition, in 2010, Jackson attempted to get a measure on the ballot opposing marriage equality in D.C. In pursuit of that effort, he led the group Stand for Marriage DC.  According to documents attained by Mother Jones magazine, NOM gave $60,000 for that effort. 


William Owens - Owens is the head of CAAP (the Coalition of African-American Pastors). Supposedly CAAP was leading an effort to get the black community to withhold their votes from President Obama in the upcoming 2012 election because of his support for marriage equality. However, it was found out by USA Today that CAAP had deep connections to conservative groups, including NOM. It was also found out, via the Washington Blade, that NOM was paying Owens and his wife $20,000 for their services.

So all of this comes down to one unwavering fact - in spite of all of its platitudes of merely wanting to “protect marriage” and whining about “unfairly being labeled as a bigot simply for believing in traditional marriage,” NOM is merely a shady group with a good spin. But behind the spin are the same lies and homophobia which the lgbt community has learned to expect from so-called “traditional morality groups.”

No matter what you hear today from NOM, its employees or supporters, never forget these five examples of anti-gay bigotry.

NOM is hoping that you do.

Related links:

The Regnerus Fallout

NOM Exposed 

How They See Us: Unmasking the Religious Right War on Gay America

GLAAD’s Commentator Accountability Project 

h/t: Brian Tashman at RWW

thepoliticalfreakshow:

Are you there, God? It’s Herman Cain—and the rest of The GOP is likely coming, too.

The Tea Party’s favorite pizza-preneur hit the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans on Saturday with a message for conservatives, but more importantly, for Jesus Christ: If called, he’s ready for another run at the presidency in 2016.

“I do not know what the future holds, but I know who holds the future, and that’s God Almighty,” Cain said. “And in case someone is wondering, I don’t trust in government, I trust in God.”

He’s not the only one waiting for God’s go-ahead. “I believe God will make it clear to me if that’s something I’m supposed to do,” said Ben Carson on Fox News in August. The neurosurgeon earned plaudits from conservatives last year (the Wall Street Journal ran a “Ben Carson for President” editorial) following his scalding speech at the White House prayer breakfast.

But sadly for both, God has been known to endorse multiple candidates, and a push from the man upstairs doesn’t always add up to votes.

It’s no surprise that many GOP candidates invoke God in stump speeches; after Mormons, evangelicals are the most Republican religion and just one in 10 consider themselves liberal. But only a select few belong to the divine endorsement club.

Members include former Indiana State Sen. William Costas, who credited a “message from God” delivered by his wife for his ultimately unsuccessful 1986 Congressional run. That same year Richard Stokes lost a bid for a U.S. Senate seat in Pennsylvania, along with his wife, when he quit his job as a middle school teacher after hearing the “very deep, very plain” voice of God at 3 a.m. telling him to launch a campaign that focused on abortion, homosexuality and Communism. And Jim Bob Duggar—hero of the Quiverfull movement and star of the reality series 19 Kids and Counting—said he was “called by God,” but didn’t make it past the Republican primary in his 2002 U.S. Senate attempt. Even Ronald Reagan heard the voice of God, according to his son, Michael, who wrote in his book, Hand of Providence, “He believed God had called him to run for president. He believed God had things for him to do.”

God has been known to endorse multiple candidates, and a push from the man upstairs doesn’t always add up to votes.

In 2012, at least five candidates claimed God had called them all the run.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich told Fox News’ Sean Hannity it would be “up to God and the American people,” whether he would seek the nomination.

Herman Cain is just awaiting a sign like the one handed down to him in 2011. Before throwing his hat in the ring, he said, “I felt like Moses when God said, ‘I want you to go into Egypt and lead my people out.’ Moses resisted. I resisted.… But you shouldn’t question God.”

Though Rick Santorum’s wife, Karen, told him, “God cannot possibly want you to do this,” he ultimately convinced her with prayer that God was leading him onto the presidential path.  “After a while she saw the same thing I did.”

In 2011, Texas Gov. Rick Perry told a reporter, “I’m getting more and more comfortable every day that this is what I’ve been called to do. This is what America needs.” And after a string of bad luck pushed him into third place—offensive campaign ads, and laughable debate performances helped—his wife, Anita, likened him to Moses, and described his decision to run as heeding signs from above, relayed by her to her chosen husband. “He didn’t want to hear a thing about running for president,” she said. “He felt like he needed to see the burning bush. I said ‘Look, let me tell you something. You may not see that burning bush, but there are people seeing that burning bush for you.’”

And you can thank God for Michele Bachmann, too. In 2006, the Almighty ordered the mother of five to run for Congress. But He wasn’t finished, so in 2011 God urged her to run for the highest office. “Every decision that I make I pray about, as does my husband,” the Congresswoman explained.  “And I can tell you, yes, I’ve had that calling and that tugging on my heart that this is the right thing to do…”

These candidates all claimed that God was the impetus and continuing force behind their campaigns. And every one, save Rick Santorum, claims they never wanted to do it in the first place. According to their own admissions, they had to be convinced by God to do his will.

And they all lost.

But then again, God never mentioned anything about winning.

God’s favorite candidates can all take heart in the words of another famous loser, Pat Robertson, who claimed the White House was as good as his in the 1988 election. The televangelist was another who initially resisted God’s call to run, but eventually relented. “I heard the Lord,” Robertson whispered in front of a New Hampshire church congregation along the campaign trail, “saying ‘I have something else for you to do. I want you to run for president of the United States.’” He went on, “I assure you that I am going to be the next president of the United States.”

After finishing a distant third, Robertson says in his book, The Plan, that he questioned his faith. “I’ve been asked the question a hundred times: ‘Did you miss God?’ I asked over and over, ‘Did I miss Your leading, Father? … Did I hear You? … Why didn’t I win?’”

Robertson’s soul searching led him to draw a comparison between his loss and Jesus Christ himself, whom, he writes, “failed by human standards but was part of God’s perfect plan. Was He hurt? Of course he was. Will He be vindicated? Gloriously so.”

“I followed God’s plan for me, so in His eyes I did win.”

Amen.

thepoliticalfreakshow:

A federal judge has ruled that Pennsylvania’s state law banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, bringing the total number of state marriage amendments to be overturned in the federal courts over the past year to over a dozen. Pennsylvania is one of the five states that does not have marriage equality but only has a state law banning it — not a state constitutional amendment. The decision did not include a stay, which means marriages could possibly begin immediately. Pennsylvania law requires a 3-day waiting period between when an application is filed and when a license can be issued, but counties also have the power to waive it.

According to Judge John E. Jones III, a George W. Bush appointee who was recommended by then-Sen. Rick Santorum (R), Pennsylvania’s ban — like the many other bans that have fallen recently — violates same-sex couples’ equal protection under the law. “We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history,” he concluded.

Jones reflected on the experience of the various plaintiffs’ life experience, using headings borrowed from traditional marriage vows. Under “For better, for worse,” he noted how the couples have “shared in life’s joys” together. Under “For richer, for poorer,” he highlighted how they have combined their finances and placed legal trust in each other. Under “In sickness and in health,” he worried about how the marriage laws forces them to be “legal strangers” who are “left vulnerable in times of crisis.” Under “Until death do us part,” he acknowledged that the couples “demonstrate an intention to live out their lives together,” explaining that they brought the suit “to transcend the pain, uncertainty, and injustice visited by the Marriage Laws.”

The decision dismisses the state’s claims that same-sex marriage is a “new right.” Instead, Jones ruled, “the fundamental right to marry is a personal right to be exercised by the individual,” one that “these individuals have always been guaranteed by the United States Constitution.”

Another important aspect of Jones’ ruling is the designation of sexual orientation as a “quasi-suspect class.” Unlike in other Circuits, the 3rd Circuit has no precedent for whether or not to consider sexual orientation with what’s called “heightened scrutiny” — i.e. a characteristic deserving of protection from laws that might discriminate against it. Other Circuits have jurisprudence dictating that sexual orientation is not a suspect class, but Jones was free to consider the question for himself. There are four factors generally used to determine such a classification: is there a history of discrimination against the group, does the identity impact individuals’ capabilities as citizens, is the identity a distinguishing characteristic (i.e. is it “immutable”), and has the group experienced political powerlessness. After weighing the criteria, Jones concluded that sexual orientation warrants at least quasi-suspect scrutiny, meaning that laws that appear to discriminate based on such identities must meet a higher level of justification in order to be upheld.

The ACLU suitfiled last July, was the first challenging Pennsylvania’s ban, but at least three others are continuing to play out. Because state Attorney General Kathleen Kane (D) refused to defend the ban, Gov. Tom Corbett (R) hired private lawyers to step in, at the taxpayer cost of $400 an hour.

An October poll found that 54 percent of Pennsylvanians supported legislation to allow same-sex couples to marry. Jones speculated that the notion of “separate but equal” marriage will fade in future generations, such that “the label same-sex marriage will be abandoned, to be replaced simply by marriage.”

Source: Zack Ford for ThinkProgress

Man On Dog Santorum on Lawrence v. Texas's aftermath

Rick Santorum last week told a conservative talk show host that his predictions about the ramifications of Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court case that knocked down laws banning gay sex, have come true.

After host Lars Larson told the former presidential candidate that “the last several years have proved that you were absolutely right” on “homosexual issues,” Santorum said that “if you go back and look at the interviews I did when the Lawrence v. Texas case was decided and I said here are the consequences of what’s going to happen here, I said it in the next ten years and it was the next eight years or nine years.”

Santorum said following the Lawrence decision that “if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

Despite Santorum’s self-congratulatory remarks, bigamy, polygamy, and incest have not been legalized in the US, or in any of the states that have marriage equality laws for that matter.

He also told Larson that conservatives are losing their “religious liberty” and “the ability to disagree.”

From the 04.29.2014 edition of Compass Media Networks’ The Lars Larson Show:

Santorum on Bible instruction in classroom and professors’ biases:

After insisting that his false predictions about the Lawrence v. Texas decision actually came true, Rick Santorum told conservative radio host Lars Larson last week that it is time the right-wing “majority” demand schools require Bible instruction in the classroom.

“We are the majority, the people who believe in the [conservative] values you were just talking about are the majority of people in this country, but we’ve allowed the elite, the academic progressive elitist left to ram all this stuff down our throat and we just take it,” Santorum said. “We need to take it back. We need to say, why is the Bible not taught in schools? They’ll say, ‘oh Lars this is terrible.’ The Bible is the basis of Western Civilization.

Larson agreed, “I would do it, I would require it, I’d love to see that.”

“Right,” Santorum responded, before discussing how “we need to give parents control of the education system in this country.”


From the 04.29.2014 edition of Compass Media Networks’ The Lars Larson Show:

h/t: Greg Legum at Wonkette

The results are in for the CPAC and Senate Conservatives Fund straw polls for the 2016 GOP primary. 
Rand Paul wins CPAC straw poll for 2nd year in a row. 
While over at the SCF version, Ted Cruz won that straw poll.

2014 CPAC Straw Poll results:

31 KY Senator Rand Paul
11 TX Senator Ted Cruz
9 Neurosurgeon Ben Carson
8 NJ Governor Chris Christie
7 Former PA Senator Rick Santorum
7 WI Governor Scott Walker
6 FL Senator Marco Rubio
3 TX Governor Rick Perry
3 WI Congressman Paul Ryan
2 Former AR Governor Mike Huckabee
2 LA Governor Bobby Jindal
2 Former AK Governor Sarah Palin
2 Former Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice
1 Former IN Governor Mitch Daniels
1 OH Governor John Kasich
1 IN Governor Mike Pence
1 OH Senator Rob Portman
1 SD Senator John Thune
1 Business Executive Donald Trump
1 Former FL Congressman Allen West
* NH Senator Kelly Ayotte
* KS Governor Sam Brownback
* SC Governor Nikki Haley
* NM Governor Susana Martinez
* SC Senator Tim Scott

Alex Seitz-Wald (@aseitzwald):

Senate Conservatives Fund straw poll:

Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) - 42.46% (17,605)
Sen. Rand Paul (KY) - 17.38% (7,207)
Gov. Scott Walker (WI) - 10.42% (4,322)
Other Write-in Candidates - 6.50% (2,696)
Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee (AR) - 6.29% (2,608)
Gov. Rick Perry (TX) - 4.44% (1,841)
Sen. Marco Rubio (FL) - 2.47% (1,025)
Fmr. Gov. Jeb Bush (FL) - 2.27% (943)
Gov. Chris Christie (NJ) - 2.00% (828)
Rep. Paul Ryan (WI) - 1.64% (680)
Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA) - 1.26% (522)
Fmr. Sen. Rick Santorum (PA) - 0.93% (386)
Gov. John Kasich (OH) - 0.72% (299)
Gov. Mike Pence (IN) - 0.47% (195)
Gov. Nikki Haley (SC) - 0.40% (165)
Gov. Susana Martinez (NM) - 0.34% (140)

A total of 41,462 votes were cast.

Bridge scandal a dark cloud for Christie’s term as RGA chairman (via NJ.com)

By Jenna Portnoy and Salvador Rizzo/The Star-Ledger TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie was primed for a year of retail politics as the new chairman of the Republican Governors Association, ready to show up at campaign events all over the country and meet…



 

Channeling Rick Santorum, Freedom Watch’s Larry Klayman wrote in a column this weekend that Tea Party activists fighting President Obama are the true heirs to Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr.

Klayman, who is calling for the overthrow of the Obama administration, wrote in WorldNetDaily that he will soon establish a Third Continental Congress and a “government in waiting” since his tiny White House rally failed to convince the president to resign.

“[L]et us take Mandela’s achievement in liberating South Africa from bondage as a further example of what we can accomplish in freeing our own nation from the choking despotic governmental slavery of Obama and his pliant Democratic and Republican minions in Congress and the judiciary,” Klayman wrote.

“We will soon be announcing the date to convene the Third Continental Congress in Philadelphia early next year where, taking a page from the Founding Fathers, we will meet to plan the next steps of our Second American Revolution, with delegates from all 50 states.”

h/t:  Brian Tashman at Right Wing Watch

h/t: TPM

Rachel Maddow explains how a potential big ruling by SCOTUS on birth control and contraception could have drastic consequences. 

From the 11.26.2013 edition of MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show: