*Free contraception will not work any better than free education has. There will always be a large percent of young people making wrong choices in the absence of two parent families and societies teaching that abortion is an acceptable form of birth control.*

That's right. Let's do nothing about the problem but blame people. Ideally, let's blame young people. Or... how 'bout this -- let's blame women. Hey... young women!

Oh, wait, I know... let's make even more things illegal. That should solve it. Works for drugs, right?

C'mon -- offer some solutions. Sitting there talking about two-parent families, ain't gonna cut it.

Remember, even Ronald Reagan was a crappy parent.

Golden: I think Romney has actually figured out an interesting way to put it... this idea that the GOP is the party of people who want to be rich. (I don't 100% agree, but it's interesting phrasing.)

I think there are probably a lot of people who do support the GOP, even against their own interests, because of this belief that they want to side with the rich folks.

Also interesting to me was how tongue-tied he was trying to talk about poor people.

"And we’re also the party of people who want to care to help people from getting poor."

I'm not even sure what that means. I suppose he'll work on it. But I guess he's trying.

<i>How do you know that I know what I'm talking about? Did you verify your information with RH?</i>

Did you lie?

Wow, this is like a one-man fact-check-palooza.

(a.) Sweden and Switzerland already have universal healthcare that is certainly more comprehensive than ACA. (Not sure about China, although I'd imagine they claim they have it.) But you're right... Certainly Swedes, Swiss and Chinese citizens would not be affected by ACA.

(Aside... interesting reading in Forbes on the strengths of the Swiss system: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/0…)

(b.) However... the fundraisers you mention (as did the entire conservative blogosphere yesterday) target *American citizens* living in those countries.

You know, sometimes Americans go and live in other countries and then come back. And even if they don't, they're still citizens (unless they renounce, etc.) and can still vote and donate.

Obama was actually in yet another foreign country raising money yesterday... Texas.

I agree that the discussion of "exclusive" was silly. Thanks for finally coming around.

I'm not "taking issue" with the $50k per couple fundraiser; I'm pointing it out.

I agree that it's a sad truth about all the money required in politics; I frequently find myself wishing we had something akin to the British system with much shorter election cycles. And certainly Citizens United has compounded the problem.

Thanks also for the information about River Hills. That's interesting. $3600 a year would be tough for some folks. (Comparisons to CCJ or Annandale might be sidestepping the fact that those places have golf courses, but I won't quibble.)

As for calling us "feeble" -- feel better now? :)

Thanks for reading!

Private club, $50k a couple fundraiser and I didn't hear you mention how much it cost you to purchase the stock and maintain monthly dues. But OMG did someone say "exclusive"? Of course not -- they serve margaritas!

BTW, any word on whether any of Romney's supporters was purple? ;)

kdavis -- since you decided to call my name, a few responses.

First, there are no "purple" or "green" people, and I honestly think if there were, you might find River Hills wouldn't accept them. I'd hazard to say purple people wouldn't be served in a Denny's, at least until there was a reasonable explanation.

Second, you're telling me you were a member. How much did it cost? If it really is less than the Courthouse then, yes, I'd agree that "exclusive" is a strong word. But is it?

I suspect it costs more than the Courthouse or the Y to buy stock and keep up your monthly dues.

In that case, what would be a better word? Tony? Sophisticated? Well-lit?

I think there's a generally accepted use of the word "exclusive" that is used to suggest "not a ballroom at the Ramada." And I think it fits here.

I've been in River Hills... it's nice. I can see why people have weddings and receptions there vs. having them at the Y, or the Courthouse, even thought those places are good at what they do and have membership fees. But it's not the same.

Oh, and not to belabor the point, but the story actually is about poor Latinos protesting a GOP fundraiser. Lord help Mr. Romney if all the folks at the fundraiser are poor. Maybe they're there for the cheese squares.

I think it's a time-honored tradition that people do not attend political fundraisers for the food. :)

RobbieR: I don't think you have to buy stock in the Y, and I'm pretty sure they don't require a written recommendation from an existing shareholder.

But, you're right, it's a private club, just with what I would call a "less-exclusive" membership policy.

And I imagine, from your facetious tone regarding the Y, you recognize how different the fund-raiser would be there. :)