No, he just expects the rest of us to pay for his 'choice' to live on thick steaks, deep fat and hot fudge. His healthcare is footed by the taxpayer, and he's a triple bypass waiting to happen (assuming it hasn't already).

Understand this -- we all pay for one another's poor health decisions one way or another, either through increased healthcare premiums, taxes, or the cost to society of medical bankruptcy.

HA!

Tim, Enough of this disrespect for President Bush, or does your disrespect nullify that for the current one in office.

We can fail on our own. Communism is something to fight, not embrace.

That's great Steve. Tell that to businesses in this country that are exporting our jobs to Communist China.

Are they exporting jobs or seeking new business opportunities because of the growth in their economy? Maybe if we would get away from this hyper regulation business could afford to do business here again. Or we can keep growing the government, creating the food police, and watch as our free choices are taken away.

@Steve --What food police? When I was in school we ate what was served or we didn't eat at all. Some of it was less than tasty -- army chow -- but we weren't all as obese.

Next big brother will be telling us if we can use our bathroom and flush the toilet!

Sam makes stuff up, so what? Who cares?

Agree with you Sam, hypocrisy reighns in this white house, double standards prevail! Meanwhile Ms. Obama has another ice cream with fries!

Micelle is telling you nothing, but just suggesting. Are so childish that you can't take a suggestion, or is it the fact that it is coming from a black woman?

Great Keith, talk about childish and ridiculous, the race card again, really, I don't think so, it's about actions not just words! I suggest you libs get your heads out of the sand and wake up to what's happening in this country over the past 40 or so years and now at an accelerating pace. I admonish all of you to read a little known book written by ex Secretary of the TreasuryWilliam E. Simon, " A Time for Truth" circa 1978, you might learn something. Oh, Conservatives might do well to read it too.

Lighten up a bit there, Lyle. This isn't some major policy issue of import here. Finding humor in it is no different than what's done nightly on a pseudo-news program a number of folks on the left enjoy - some to the point of actually considering it "the news".

Obviously, the jokes on Jim. It'll be a long time before he lives this one down.

You know, I'd be just as offended by his comment about the merchandise at a church auction being 'crap'. Here, obviously, is a man who feels himself superior to the rest of us, and it shows in his policy-making.

Come on lyle - You have never talked down about anyone? Well you are talking down about the congressman right now. Wish every word you said in private was overheard and documented? Sure I could find plenty of other instances where this could be reversed.

Y'know, Steve, there is a happy medium between tofu burgers and Cheetos washed down with Mountain Dew. Heaven forbid kids should be encouraged to eat their vegetables.

Welcome to Huffington Post owned Patch where Bush is defined as a buffoon in their mission statement.

Randy, if someone were to check around with the folks you knew, what do you think the odds are that they might find that you'd made an unflattering comment about another person's appearance at some point in your life?

I can honestly say that I've never disparaged the size of a person with a smaller behind than mine.

That wasn't the question, but the answer indicates a natural aptitude for politics. Maybe you should run for Jim's seat (no pun intended) and we can see if you're able to pass the smell test (again, no pun intended).

@Bob McBride -- Me, run for office in Sensenbrenner's district? A snowflake would have a better chance in hell.

I dunno Randy, maybe? Do you promise not to call Michelle Obama a fat-a$$ and restrict yourself to healthy eating only? Are you currently "less imposing" than Big Jim? Judging from the reaction I'm seeing to this incident (not only here), if you can answer "yes" to those 3 items, you might have a decent shot at it.

After the comments by Sensenbrenner and Limbaugh, you wonder who stole their mirrors?

Sensenbrenner doesn't lecture on and regulate food......

Sensenbrenner, back in 2005, mixed into the most private family business he could possibly find, in the Schiavo case. And he cared so much he couldn't even pronounce her name correctly.

He's pointing out Michelle's mote while ignoring his own big beam.

@Randy1949...Didn't you know that women have to meet an ideal that men don't. Attitudes like J.S. and other men's, give a bad name to all of us males. It's little wonder that most women claim we are pigs.

@Bob McBride -- Absolutely truthful answer? She looks like a woman who knows what she's talking about when she tells people to make healthy food choices. At her age, in her circumstances, and with her body-type she's be spherical if she didn't watch what she ate and keep fit. She's tending toward heavy, but she carries it well.

Here's an example of the ideal these days - in this case surgically enhanced:

http://www.mydochub.com/blog/index.php/2011/11/07/lola-monroe-plastic-surgery-breast-implants-and-buttock-implants/

...so if anything, I think Jim's just a bit behind the times (again, no pun intended).

Bob McBride - point... obesity is non-partisan!

@Sam Vedder...Are you defending Sensenbrenner's behavior?

The mods left a couple of those you mention intact when they swept through to clean out some unflattering comments about Michelle (and one that in no way could be deemed offensive). I think Steve hit the nail on the head earlier. Republicans are essentially fair game for any kind of commentary. Whereas one of the biggest advertisers around here (the Obama campaign) can count on tactful removal of offending materials.

No, Lyle... I'm criticizing yours. People in public office are constantly being hounded and the opposition is always looking for sound bites. The number of verbal "gaffs" from the Obama administration is mind numbing, and yes, WAY more than Bush's administration. Biden alone is a national embarrassment every other time he is allowed to speak. But so what. They are in front of microphones all day everyday. They all mess up from time-to-time. Jim Sensenbrenner saying that Michelle has a big "butt" and shouldn't be lecturing about nutrition is hardly disrespectful; it's calling out that she is a hypocrite. And his line at the church was, I'm sure, just frustration that he came to the auction and spent money on stuff he didn't necessarily need, but bought to support the church (crap is not the best word, but really? that bothers you?). And some lady gets in his face about Obama. Really? Who's calling out the woman for her inappropriate, if not ill-timed, comments while at a church auction? Tell you what; I'll do it. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME on the woman for her ungrateful attitude!

@Sam Vedder...the lady that got in his face was a 72 year old woman sitting and knitting when he made his comment. She called him to account for his statement. You call that getting in his face? I call it acting like a responsible adult.

Steve, the flaming Nazi gasbag makes thinly veiling racist jokes about The First Lady and about her healthy food initiative all the time.

As usual Lyle; you're wrong. Read the story. She approached him and made the Obama comment and THAT's when he made the "baby got back" comment.

And you can add everybody's favorite commenter, Keith Schmitz, to the list for his hypocrisy calling Sensenbrenner a "Nazi gasbag" and a "racist". Keep 'em coming people, you make yourselves more and more pathetic with each post... and I love it!!

I think even Joe Biden would say she has a 'big f'ing caboose'.
Really if this is all one can come up with on Sensenbrenner, who cares?

@Sam Vedder -- "And Randy1949… well, who knows what he’s talking about."

If you aren't aware of Mr. Sensenbrenner's legislative record concerning Terri's Law, you shouldn't be defending him on the basis that he wants to keep government out of our private decisions.

Limbaugh richly earns any invective that gets dished out. He shouldn't be on the radio.

Back off pedophile, we all don't have 8-5 jobs.

@Herbert -- I'm self-employed/semi-retired.

@Sam Vedder -- was that necessary?

Get a clue Randy1949, his name and profile picture is from a character on the show, Family Guy and is a pedophile. Having that name and picture is inviting those comments.

Happy Holidays to you also!

Yeah, but that was different because..:::wait for it::::

It could have been worse... I bowl so poorly that octomom could beat me if we just aimed her birthing canal down the lane.

Or, I bowl like white people play basketball.

Hang your hat on this one Keith. If it's the best you can come up with at this point, you're losing the battle.

Sensenbrenner said something stupid in the mistaken assumption that he was speaking privately. Trying to blow this out of proportion and make it about everything from racism to health care to hurt feelings about poor old Al Gore is grasping at straws.

Is this how it's being covered on The Ed Show and by Thom Hartmann and the like? For all the criticism of Fox and Limbaugh, your version of the same things glom onto nonsense like this just like they do and tries to score points with it - just as do Limbaugh and Fox.

Enough with the faux outrage already. Nobody's buying it. And, frankly, your own obsession with Michelle's race has me wondering if you're not projecting some internal struggle you're dealing with.

Bob,
I think you could be projecting your racism at his projected racism at others racism, projected or otherwise. Do you want to talk about this? Damn, wait, I might have projected. Some people on here are using the word "racism" to try to inform the ignorant, some are using it to try and shut up those who are not. Starting to sound like "if I shout your a racist, maybe you will shut up". The findings of paleoanthropology aren't racist for stating the facts of genetic traits, unless you scream loud enough that they are. JF sensenbrenner isn't being racist at all, he was being an a-hole. And frankly, I don't give a crap. What I do think it speaks to is his character, and we should all hope that our elected officials represent the public's level of morality and character. I think that you can agree on that. Will people screw up, yes, but hopefully not on something as "middle school" as this, maybe something like getting a BJ from someone that isn't their wife. Then we should try to impeach them for enjoying it and not wanting to share that.

Too much coffee this morning, Keith? I was merely trying to bring a little humor to a contentious blog. No sense of humor? Ouch! OK, I deleted the less serious gaffes for you, but left the Obama gaffe to show that both sides are capable of making such mistakes.

Say What?, what if you're "the ignorant"? If you are, surely you'd be too ignorant to know one way or the other. We could take a vote or we could see how you react to being called a racist. Which would you prefer?

Yes, I find Sensenbrenner's comment offensive and uncalled for (as well as hypocritical, given his own obesity), just as I did Obama's comment regarding the Special Olympics.

So, just as Obama apologized, Sensenbrenner intends to apologize as well. In view of such apologies, what more is there to truly say here regarding either party?

However, it’s not that simple, right? Human nature dictates that opponents of either Obama or Sensenbrenner will pounce on the opportunity to milk the mistake for all that its worth, largely ignoring other more relevant issues.

For example, Sensenbrenner has aggressively investigated the Fast & Furious scandal (a FUBAR operation that resulted in the death of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent), calling on U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder assume responsibility for the debacle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNSf3eMMf_U

However, we both know that Sensenbrenner's investigation will be largely ignored while the main stream media sensationalizes his ignorant comment. It's the nature of the beast, right? So why get caught up in it?

@Keith -- as a constituent, I want JF Sensenbrenner very badly to go away.

Corn syrup is about more than obesity. It's as simple a carb as you can get. I have a young relative who's as thin as a rail, but she already has been diagnosed as pre-diabetic because of a diet of mostly junk food and soda.

You can be healthy and fit with 'generous haunches' like our First Lady.

Well you do both so I guess we have to take your word for it, Keith.

Then it would be best if you didn't use it as frequently as you do to attempt to negate points being made by people with whom you disagree from a political standpoint. It's entirely possible to disagree with the President, find fault with the concept of his wife's healthy eating campaign (which I, personally, don't) or poke fun at this particular incident without race entering into the picture. Using it as a means of attempting to squelch any of those things is completely unnecessary as well. In short, you don't have to go there.

Keith Schmitz - I understand your point, but I didn't read anywhere that implied Sensenbrenner's comments were racist... they were callous, mean-spirited, and unprofessional (which all are, but when in public...), but not racist.

Bob, it's funny that you seem compelled to react to the racism charge but when Lyle, Nick, myself and other libs get attacked as being socialists and communists, which is total nonsense, you are strangely silent?

I could care one way or another because it comes with territory, but just curious.

@Keith...One small correction to your comment; I am a democratic socialist. I fully expect to get heat for it, but I am what I am.

Keith,

I guess if you consider being labeled a communist, socialist or racist equally inflammatory it would seem funny to you.

Are you comfortable regulating what people can and can't eat in pursuit of achieving that goal, Ike. I'm just curious to see how far you're willing to go in that regard, because I think it's a pretty safe bet that the message, as much of a feel good as it may be, isn't hitting home where it should.

I do believe kids (people under the age of 14 lets say) NEED to be told what to eat. Strong, I know, however kids younger than 14ish do not learn about the consequences of what you eat on their own. Schools already tell kids what to eat, they're not offered a full buffet, kids are told you are eating this today. why shouldn't school be forced to serve freshly-cooked, locally-grown food? I know, how communist of me, but I work with kids and I know the negative consequences unhealthy food has on their daily functioning. If food is regulated at the school-age level and younger, I think as adults, they are much more likely to choose healthier options. Therefore, it would be unnecessary to regulate adult food choices.

Bob McBride - I don't think you have young kids, but maybe you have noticed a change in the way kids are eating. Take a look at the Lunchables section at Sendiks. Kids eat that stuff because it's easy for the parents. Look at the meat in those packs, it's horrifying. The options for parents are too many. Many parents are taking a stand against that garbage and the government needs to back them up. Your taxes are being spent to fix those problems. Wouldn't it be nice if less money was spent on Medicaid/Medicare because the complications associated with poor eating habits are fewer?

Nobody is regulating anything Bob. You all getting wound up about it need to not only simmer down, but find some perspective.

And I think it should be up to the local community. Put it to a vote. If local parents feel strongly enough about providing the kind of food you suggest and want to approve the extra cost in doing so, so be it. And if they want to lock down the schools so that the kids can't wander off to the gas station to feast on chips or subject carry in lunch's to inspection and approval by in school nutrition experts in order to further enforce healthy eating, they should be allowed to vote to institute that as well. Likewise, if they think that's all nonsense, that should be their call as well. Someone has to pay for it, one way or the other. Those people should be allowed to choose.

" I don't think you have young kids, but maybe you have noticed a change in the way kids are eating. Take a look at the Lunchables section at Sendiks. Kids eat that stuff because it's easy for the parents. Look at the meat in those packs, it's horrifying. "

This is the result of insidious social change. The two-earner family has changed from an option to a social and economic requirement. Parents have little or not time to cook, help with homework, or parent their children period. Our health, literacy and behavior is in decline. We might want to stop and take a look at what is going on and why.

Bob McBride - I think you're being a little dramatic here. Of course kids will sneak in whatever they want. However, having an unhealthy snack is a lot different than having an unhealthy snack when every meal you eat is unhealthy and overly-processed.

I'm pretty confident that the extra costs would be minimal. In fact, for those of us that care more about our kids' futures and the costs they will endure, eating healthier will actually be cheaper. It's an altruistic investment... we pay a little more now (even though I'm not convinced we would notice the difference) and get no gain from it so our kids pay less in the future.

Fine, Randy, then let's dump it on the schools as Ike suggests - if the community so chooses. Do you honestly think hurried parents are going to start cooking from scratch again because someone's going to guilt them into it? Do you think most of them don't know this stuff isn't the best for their kids?

Or do you want mandates, restrictions on what can and can't be sold, the ability of concerned citizens to report those families they suspect might not be providing their kids with proper nutrition?

In other words, do you want to talk a good game or actually play one?

Ike, I'm not being dramatic. In fact I'm basing it on a discussion here surrounding an attempt to provide something other than modified fast food at Shorewood and actual comments by kids and parents stating that the kids would rather go off campus to get something to eat than eat what's being served - and they're doing just that.

There was a time when schools pretty much served nothing but nutritional food. I'm old enough to remember that. They started introducing the stuff kids liked because the kids wouldn't eat it. It's not like there's not a past track record to look at here. In addition, in days gone by most kids went home for lunch - some got good food, some got crap. You can attempt to turn the clock back in that regard, but believing it's going to be different because it's what you want to believe isn't going to make it so. If you want it to take, you're going to have to enforce it.

@Bob McBride -- Mrs. Obama is not 'the government' setting laws about what we can and can't eat. She's just giving some good advice. What is your problem with that? How the government could help is by subsidizing healthier foods than corn and corn syrup. We eat so damn much of it because it's cheap.

School lunches don't all have to be tofu and veggie burgers -- just decent nutrition with a vegetable or two. And get the vending machines out of there.

"In other words, do you want to talk a good game or actually play one?"

I actually play one. Mostly because I take good advice and think for myself.

Keith Schmitz
11:33 am on Friday, December 23, 2011
Nobody is regulating anything Bob. You all getting wound up about it need to not only simmer down, but find some perspective.

**************

Yes, Keith, I understand they're not regulating it. I'm saying that without regulating it, this little feel-good campaign isn't likely to take. Which once again leads back to folks getting all excited about Jimbo's comment because it, shockingly, indicates he doesn't particularly approve of government intervention in fat kids. Which, once again, is overstating the import of Jimbo commenting on Michelle's butt. And, which once again, leads back to this not being about nutrition, fat kids, healthcare, degrading women, racism or any other of a number of things you and the rest of the over-reactionaries and opportunists weighing in on it would like it to be about.

Sometimes a guy eating his own size 11 is just a guy eating his own size 11.

While she's not "the government", Ike, let's not pretend she's your average citizen on a crusade. First ladies always have some cause they're involved in and generally it's just like this one. It's a PR must and accepted tradition. I think a number of people question the sincerity of the effort, just as many on the other questioned that of Nancy Reagan or Laura Bush, for instance.

I think if people would just stop pretending (and I really hope most are pretending - if not we've got a lot of Rumpelstiltskins who just stopped sawing logs in '08) they're astounded when confronted with politics as usual, maybe we could get past some of the nonsense and move on to the meat and potatoes (no pun yada yada yada) of the issues.

Always good for a pun... Even before elected the questions arises "what cause do you think his wife is going to fight for." I think it's a great tradition and raises awareness like Laura Bush's illiteracy campaign. I see no point in questioning sincerity in this case or in the case of previous first ladies, they're either pushing for their cause or not (in this case, she is practicing what she preaches evidenced by the huge fruit and vegetable garden consistently visited by DC schools and recently sown on the South Lawn, and they now raise their own bees) But Sensenbrenner's comments, not so much about Mrs. Obama, but about fighting government involvement to reduce obesity are concerning.

Ike, are you surprised at all by the fact that Sensennbrenner isn't particularly enamored at the prospect of government involvement in attempts to reduce obesity? Does that some how go against his general stance on most things?

Frankly, I'm more surprised that he's been scoping out Michelle's behind than I am by his opposition to the government involving itself in the obesity issue.

Dave - it was a private conversation, not a public address. I know many of mine wouldn't stand up to public scrutiny and I'm guessing yours wouldn't either. Shame on Jim for not recognizing that in this day and age his position prevents him from assuming any conversation is private, but let's not overplay this hand. This is sound bite and arguetainment material with a shelf life of about a week - nothing more. Have fun with it while you can, but the larger implications are nonexistent.

Then we should automatically be privy to each and every politician's conversation, don't you think, Dave?

F Jim made everyone privy when he made the remarks in public. You'd think with all the years of being in public office he'd know better, but being out in Hartland he probably felt "comfortable" lettin' it all hang out.

It was still a private conversation and not an official address, Keith. If you bump your noggin in public and bark out a stream of expletives, it doesn't mean you've got anger issues or Tourette's.

Not the same thing.

No, Keith, you're right. It's not exactly the same thing.

Actually you could have C&P'd the same response about 5 comment threads up and been right there as well.

Dave, I'm not excusing what he said. I'm just not agreeing that you can draw any relative conclusion about him, other than that he doesn't self-censor very well, from it. And, frankly, most of the conclusions that can and have been drawn from it don't contradict anything not already unknown about the guy,

The only thing notable about it is that he put his foot in his mouth, Extrapolating the greater meaning of this as it relates to healthcare, obesity, racism or the actual degree to which Michelle Obama has an outsized rear end is just attempting to ride the horse until it drops from exhaustion. Which is fine - let's just be honest about it.

Lyle, it would kind of hard to have made the comment he made and not have it apply to a woman. Is the fact that it's been pointed out that it's ironic because he's beyond portly demeaning to men?

Some women might just take Jim's off the record comment as a compliment! Now com'n everyone there are more important things to command our attention and besides it's the holiday season, Christmas to be more exact, can we try to be nice to one another, count our blessings and be more cordial and respectful to one another.

Lyle - it went its course 10 comments in. It's been running wildly off course ever since. Somebody's gotta herd the cats. I'm waiting for paint to dry and this is more interesting than watching that.

"All these comments because of a big ass? "

That's a heck of a thing to say about Jim Sensenbrenner. Not that I don't agree, mind you . . .