Now granted I'm a bit leery of the idea of a Santorum Presidential run because there is always the chance that the guy wins do to an unforeseen circumstance. That said a Santorum bid followed by a resounding loss could in theory drive the GOP back to sanity because they couldn't use the excuse of "he just weren't conservative enough." I'll stress that might not be 100% given that 10% of Michigan voters thought he was liberal and the fringe taking over the GOP is really got at revisionist history. I'm pretty sure with Romney as the nominee, they will write the loss off as "he just wasn't conservative enough!" At which point in 2016, they just kick the borrow to the said and scrap up whatever oozed out of into the ground for presidential candidate material.
Yup. The party shifts to the opposite position of whichever nominee loses in 2012.
No, you see their excuse would be that it took someone this extreme to get Republicans motivated, and he got thiiiiiis close to the white house, so let's run a real nutjorb.
On one hand, if Romney gets the nom and loses, then the fractured GOP potentially limps on into the 2016 election.
On the other hand, that means GOP crazies can still act crazy in Congress and still have some job security.
The idea is that if Romney wins the nomination and loses, the social conservatives will go "See? We can't win on economics! We need to run on birth control and hating women!"
But if Santorum wins the nomination and loses, the sane Republicans will go, "See? We can't win on pretending this is the 40s!"
On the other hand, I kind of want Romney to be the (potential) whipping boy because I feel like with the Occupy movement coming back in force, we are at a time where we can have a serious national discussion about the policies Romney supports as a super fucking rich dude.
On the other hand, I kind of want Romney to be the (potential) whipping boy because I feel like with the Occupy movement coming back in force, we are at a time where we can have a serious national discussion about the policies Romney supports as a super fucking rich dude.
If the economy keeps picking up and we keep gaining jobs, I don't see OWS coming back in force. Especially if they refuse to take sides in politics.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
No, you see their excuse would be that it took someone this extreme to get Republicans motivated, and he got thiiiiiis close to the white house, so let's run a real nutjorb.
I've been going on the assumption that Romney is going to get the nomination one way or another. It looks like there are enough unpledged delegates to go against what the voters pick. That's kind of where the appeal is for Santorum to do better because if he wins enough, it makes it easy to reveal that the republican primary is a sham and that the only people who matter are the GOP leadership.
Anyways, as I said a few posts earlier but botched with my tiredness. In 2016, since they already scrapped the bottom of the barrel, the party is going to end up kicking it to the side and scrapping whatever oozed out of it for a presidential candidate. I'm convinced that that primary will be an even bigger circus than this one and that the crazies will have enough control of the party that the field will quickly drive out the sane candidate before Iowa and that they'll make this field look sane and decent.
On one hand, if Romney gets the nom and loses, then the fractured GOP potentially limps on into the 2016 election.
On the other hand, that means GOP crazies can still act crazy in Congress and still have some job security.
The idea is that if Romney wins the nomination and loses, the social conservatives will go "See? We can't win on economics! We need to run on birth control and hating women!"
But if Santorum wins the nomination and loses, the sane Republicans will go, "See? We can't win on pretending this is the 40s!"
On the other hand, I kind of want Romney to be the (potential) whipping boy because I feel like with the Occupy movement coming back in force, we are at a time where we can have a serious national discussion about the policies Romney supports as a super fucking rich dude.
I doubt that Occupy will be very strong in the spring. It had its moment, nothing happened, and now we're moving on.
But look at how funny they are! It's like they're trying their darnedest to imitate Stephen Colbert, which is even more funny because of Stephen Colbert's efforts to make a mockery of them! Ah ha, what a fantastic sketch group they are.
I'm pretty sure it won't matter who wins the GOP nomination at this point because whoever wins is likely going to lose to Obama.
Keep saying this - it's important to fabricate an air of inevitability!
Also, I'm lol'ing at you guys and this 'popular vote' fiction. Like somehow a candidate is weak because all the others put together got more of this tiny, unrepresentative pie. Where do you even come up with this stuff? In 20 years of watching these races, I have never heard anyone try to spin primary vote totals as "the popular vote" or act like it matters.
But look at how funny they are! It's like they're trying their darnedest to imitate Stephen Colbert, which is even more funny because of Stephen Colbert's efforts to make a mockery of them! Ah ha, what a fantastic sketch group they are.
Relieved that Santorum didn't win either MI or AZ. Just when I thought the country had dodged a bullet when Palin rode off into the sunset rather than seek the nomination, the GOP produced a wingnut candidate just as dangerously unhinged. Fortunately, the party mainstream showed a good deal more common sense than I or the MSM gave them credit for. The only candidate in this race I'd actually like to see elected is Ron Paul, but I feel the nation can at least survive four years of either another Obama term (aka Dubya's fourth term) or a Romney presidency (Dubya part four and maybe five).
Zoku Gojira on
"Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are." - Bertolt Brecht
Relieved that Santorum didn't win either MI or AZ. Just when I thought the country had dodged a bullet when Palin rode off into the sunset rather than seek the nomination, the GOP produced a wingnut candidate just as dangerously unhinged. Fortunately, the party mainstream showed a good deal more common sense than I or the MSM gave them credit for. The only candidate in this race I'd actually like to see elected is Ron Paul, but I feel the nation can at least survive four years of either another Obama term (aka Dubya's fourth term) or a Romney presidency (Dubya part four and maybe five).
You realise Santorum barely lost in Michigan right?
And that calling Obama's first term "Dubya part 3" is ludicrously stupid on so many levels, we had to make a thread to go through them all?
I don't get why people are so afraid of Santorum. His positions are completely mainstream within the Republican party, he's just more straightforward about them. I mean, don't get me wrong, a Santorum presidency would be a disaster, but so would any modern Republican presidency.
And that calling Obama's first term "Dubya part 3" is ludicrously stupid on so many levels, we had to make a thread to go through them all?
Infinite detention of American civilians when the Unitary Executive in His infinite wisdom deems it necessary, targeted killings of American civilians without due process when similary deemed necessary by same. Guantanamo still open, Iraq only vacated because the Iran-backed government has managed to assert itself. Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed only in direct legislative response to a Supreme Court decision, which was reached over the protests of the White House's legal counsel. Exactly how differently do you think a third Bush term would have unfolded? Health Care Reform? That was a pet cause of people like Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck before it became Obamacare. We'd be precisely where we are right now if the Constitution and the American voter had allowed Gee Dub another four years. And only Ron Paul among the current candidates can make a serious case to be any better than a fourth term for Dubya.
Yes, I'll concede that it's horrifying that Santorum barely lost Michigan. But compare that to the prospect of a win for that dipshit, and I feel justified in letting a sense of relief wash over me.
Zoku Gojira on
"Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are." - Bertolt Brecht
And that calling Obama's first term "Dubya part 3" is ludicrously stupid on so many levels, we had to make a thread to go through them all?
Infinite detention of American civilians when the Unitary Executive in His infinite wisdom deems it necessary, targeted killings of American civilians without due process when similary deemed necessary by same. Guantanamo still open, Iraq only vacated because the Iran-backed government has managed to assert itself. Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed only in direct legislative response to a Supreme Court decision, which was reached over the protests of the White House's legal counsel. Exactly how differently do you think a third Bush term would have unfolded? Health Care Reform? That was a pet cause of people like Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck before it became Obamacare. We'd be precisely where we are right now if the Constitution and the American voter had allowed Gee Dub another four years. And only Ron Paul among the current candidates can make a serious case to be any better than a fourth term for Dubya.
Yes, I'll concede that it's horrifying that Santorum barely lost Michigan. But compare that to the prospect of a win for that dipshit, and I feel justified in letting a sense of relief wash over me.
So much of that is wrong, twisted, or not Obama's fault but for now I'll just leave the official response by the white house and point out that "dont ask dont tell repealed protest white house" yields no response's like you claim.
But then you just made the laughable claim that Paul would be any better as President when in fact he'd be much, much worse so it probably doesn't matter.
But then you just made the laughable claim that Paul would be any better as President when in fact he'd be much, much worse so it probably doesn't matter.
And you've just confused fact with opinion in an even more laughable manner.
As for DADT, he had three years to do something about this particular campaign promise, after which Obama's hand was forced by a refusal of the Supreme Court to overrule a lower court and continue enforcement of the military's homophobic witchhunt, of which the Joint Chiefs themselves wanted no further part. While the repeal of DADT is commendable, the President himself deserves little credit for it, as it would have been an inevitable development even under his Republican predecessor.
Zoku Gojira on
"Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are." - Bertolt Brecht
But then you just made the laughable claim that Paul would be any better as President when in fact he'd be much, much worse so it probably doesn't matter.
And you've just confused fact with opinion in an even more laughable manner.
As for DADT, he had three years to do something about this particular campaign promise, after which Obama's hand was forced by a refusal of the Supreme Court to overrule a lower court and continue enforcement of the military's homophobic witchhunt, of which the Joint Chiefs themselves wanted no further part. While the repeal of DADT is commendable, the President himself deserves little credit for it, as it would have been an inevitable development even under his Republican predecessor.
No its not an opinion. The things he wants to do would destroy this country.
It was repealed in the lame duck Congress, which is definitionally less than two years after his inauguration. And McCain would have vetoed it, check his vote. Also note the refusal to defend DOMA (in at least two separate instances) and the full support for a repeal that is not going to happen, which is I'm fairly sure the only bill that was totally and absolutely doomed that this administration has supported. He's the best President on gay rights in our history by a huge margin, and I suspect once he wins re-election his position on full fledged marriage rights will mysteriously "evolve" to what it was 20 years ago.
Also, quite a few people on this board (hi!) have health insurance right now because of ACA. Not to mention all the other good bits that are coming online. Not a perfect bill, but an improvement. And one the GOP wouldn't have pursued because gutting Medicare and/or giveaways to drug companies are more their style. The parties are different.
There are legitimate criticisms to be made about this President in terms of civil liberties/executive authority, and you can go ahead and make them in the Obama thread.
As for Ron Paul, best case he couldn't get anything through Congress because both parties view him as a wackadoo crank. Worst case, Paul Ryan's budget passes and is signed.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
How do you expect to be taken seriously saying Ron Paul would be anything but horrible?
Fuck laws, that's Congress' job. The biggest power of the executive in America is helming the federal bureaucracy and appointments. Both of which can be used to horrible horrible effect, as demonstrated by GWB.
A practice Ron Paul would continue at similar levels of shittiness if not exactly the same kind of shittiness. This is a guy who wants to end the Fed and you think we (as in, the world) would be fine with him appointing it's members????
Which is yet another way Obama is utterly completely different from any Republican candidate.
This shit doesn't get mentioned cause it doesn't involve votes and it isn't "sexy" so the news ignores it but it's REALLY REALLY REALLY fucking important. GWB did incredible amounts of damage putting idiots and cronies and corrupt fucks all over the federal bureaucracy (especially the regulatory areas) and Obama's been doing alot of work the past 3+ years cleaning house.
I don't get why people are so afraid of Santorum. His positions are completely mainstream within the Republican party, he's just more straightforward about them. I mean, don't get me wrong, a Santorum presidency would be a disaster, but so would any modern Republican presidency.
The GOP leadership may dogwhistle here and there about abortion rights or states rights or prayer in schools, but to my knowledge they have never had a candidate who openly said the outrageous, easily disproved, and thoroughly insane ideas Rick Santorum says on a repeated basis.
In my recollection, no candidate before has run on a platform of being:
- anti-birth control
- anti-education
- against women in the workforce
- against the separation of church and state
- anti-libertarian
- pro-criminalizing homosexuality
. . . all at the same time.
And he's doing well enough to carry about 2/5ths of the GOP vote at any given time.
I really want(ed) Santorum to get the nom, on account of come November I'd know exactly what percentage of US voters agree with his views or don't pay enough attention to politics and can therefore be convinced to vote for things like his policies.
Knowing whether or not this country can be saved from itself in the next 4-8 years is a pretty handy piece of info to have!
But god, nothing irks me more than people who harp on Obama for not being liberal enough. If there's a scale from 1-10 where Occupy protesters are 1 and Rick Santorum is 10, even if Obama is a 5, it seems pretty clear who you vote for. "But, but, indefinite detention!"
Yeah, that's okay, keep ignoring political realities. Go ahead and cast your protest vote. Idealism always works out pretty well, historically.
I'm pretty sure it won't matter who wins the GOP nomination at this point because whoever wins is likely going to lose to Obama.
Keep saying this - it's important to fabricate an air of inevitability!
Also, I'm lol'ing at you guys and this 'popular vote' fiction. Like somehow a candidate is weak because all the others put together got more of this tiny, unrepresentative pie. Where do you even come up with this stuff? In 20 years of watching these races, I have never heard anyone try to spin primary vote totals as "the popular vote" or act like it matters.
Maybe you should go talk to President Gore about the popular vote.
That said a Santorum bid followed by a resounding loss could in theory drive the GOP back to sanity because they couldn't use the excuse of "he just weren't conservative enough." I'll stress that might not be 100% given that 10% of Michigan voters thought he was liberal and the fringe taking over the GOP is really got at revisionist history. I'm pretty sure with Romney as the nominee, they will write the loss off as "he just wasn't conservative enough!" At which point in 2016, they just kick the borrow to the said and scrap up whatever oozed out of into the ground for presidential candidate material.
66% of Republicans consider Santorum liberal or moderate. They are already geared up to chalk his loss up to him not being Conservative enough.
66% of Republicans consider Santorum liberal or moderate. They are already geared up to chalk his loss up to him not being Conservative enough.
That's not what that poll says at all - "About Right" does not mean "Moderate". For some respondents it could mean "I don't think you can get more conservative AND I LIKE IT!"
I'm pretty sure it won't matter who wins the GOP nomination at this point because whoever wins is likely going to lose to Obama.
Keep saying this - it's important to fabricate an air of inevitability!
Also, I'm lol'ing at you guys and this 'popular vote' fiction. Like somehow a candidate is weak because all the others put together got more of this tiny, unrepresentative pie. Where do you even come up with this stuff? In 20 years of watching these races, I have never heard anyone try to spin primary vote totals as "the popular vote" or act like it matters.
It's fun?
I mean honestly what's the other discussion to have? It's not like the primaries allow any substantive policy debate.
That said a Santorum bid followed by a resounding loss could in theory drive the GOP back to sanity because they couldn't use the excuse of "he just weren't conservative enough." I'll stress that might not be 100% given that 10% of Michigan voters thought he was liberal and the fringe taking over the GOP is really got at revisionist history. I'm pretty sure with Romney as the nominee, they will write the loss off as "he just wasn't conservative enough!" At which point in 2016, they just kick the borrow to the said and scrap up whatever oozed out of into the ground for presidential candidate material.
66% of Republicans consider Santorum liberal or moderate. They are already geared up to chalk his loss up to him not being Conservative enough.
Posts
I'm watching his children nod behind him, and thinking, "That...we don't nod to these things!"
Yup. The party shifts to the opposite position of whichever nominee loses in 2012.
On the other hand, I kind of want Romney to be the (potential) whipping boy because I feel like with the Occupy movement coming back in force, we are at a time where we can have a serious national discussion about the policies Romney supports as a super fucking rich dude.
If the economy keeps picking up and we keep gaining jobs, I don't see OWS coming back in force. Especially if they refuse to take sides in politics.
I've been going on the assumption that Romney is going to get the nomination one way or another. It looks like there are enough unpledged delegates to go against what the voters pick. That's kind of where the appeal is for Santorum to do better because if he wins enough, it makes it easy to reveal that the republican primary is a sham and that the only people who matter are the GOP leadership.
Anyways, as I said a few posts earlier but botched with my tiredness. In 2016, since they already scrapped the bottom of the barrel, the party is going to end up kicking it to the side and scrapping whatever oozed out of it for a presidential candidate. I'm convinced that that primary will be an even bigger circus than this one and that the crazies will have enough control of the party that the field will quickly drive out the sane candidate before Iowa and that they'll make this field look sane and decent.
I doubt that Occupy will be very strong in the spring. It had its moment, nothing happened, and now we're moving on.
...
I was afraid of that. Well, can we pretend they're just chimpanzees flinging poo at each other for just a little while longer?
(immediate anticipated response: 'why pretend'? To this future person, I say: Ohhhhhh youuuuuu)
Outside of segregation, I think the 40's were significantly more liberal than Santorum.
But now the Republicans are choosing between a giant douche and a guy whose name practically means Turd Sandwich.
You can't make this stuff up.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Keep saying this - it's important to fabricate an air of inevitability!
Also, I'm lol'ing at you guys and this 'popular vote' fiction. Like somehow a candidate is weak because all the others put together got more of this tiny, unrepresentative pie. Where do you even come up with this stuff? In 20 years of watching these races, I have never heard anyone try to spin primary vote totals as "the popular vote" or act like it matters.
You're not really allowed to use primate jokes in relation to the Presidential contest this time around.
What do I do
End the fed...
...eration. Show up dressed as a Romulan.
If this idea were a women I'd have sex with it, marry it, and move out the country and raise a bunch of little ideas.
You realise Santorum barely lost in Michigan right?
And that calling Obama's first term "Dubya part 3" is ludicrously stupid on so many levels, we had to make a thread to go through them all?
Infinite detention of American civilians when the Unitary Executive in His infinite wisdom deems it necessary, targeted killings of American civilians without due process when similary deemed necessary by same. Guantanamo still open, Iraq only vacated because the Iran-backed government has managed to assert itself. Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed only in direct legislative response to a Supreme Court decision, which was reached over the protests of the White House's legal counsel. Exactly how differently do you think a third Bush term would have unfolded? Health Care Reform? That was a pet cause of people like Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck before it became Obamacare. We'd be precisely where we are right now if the Constitution and the American voter had allowed Gee Dub another four years. And only Ron Paul among the current candidates can make a serious case to be any better than a fourth term for Dubya.
Yes, I'll concede that it's horrifying that Santorum barely lost Michigan. But compare that to the prospect of a win for that dipshit, and I feel justified in letting a sense of relief wash over me.
So much of that is wrong, twisted, or not Obama's fault but for now I'll just leave the official response by the white house and point out that "dont ask dont tell repealed protest white house" yields no response's like you claim.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/20/statement-president-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell
But then you just made the laughable claim that Paul would be any better as President when in fact he'd be much, much worse so it probably doesn't matter.
And you've just confused fact with opinion in an even more laughable manner.
As for DADT, he had three years to do something about this particular campaign promise, after which Obama's hand was forced by a refusal of the Supreme Court to overrule a lower court and continue enforcement of the military's homophobic witchhunt, of which the Joint Chiefs themselves wanted no further part. While the repeal of DADT is commendable, the President himself deserves little credit for it, as it would have been an inevitable development even under his Republican predecessor.
No its not an opinion. The things he wants to do would destroy this country.
Also, quite a few people on this board (hi!) have health insurance right now because of ACA. Not to mention all the other good bits that are coming online. Not a perfect bill, but an improvement. And one the GOP wouldn't have pursued because gutting Medicare and/or giveaways to drug companies are more their style. The parties are different.
There are legitimate criticisms to be made about this President in terms of civil liberties/executive authority, and you can go ahead and make them in the Obama thread.
As for Ron Paul, best case he couldn't get anything through Congress because both parties view him as a wackadoo crank. Worst case, Paul Ryan's budget passes and is signed.
Fuck laws, that's Congress' job. The biggest power of the executive in America is helming the federal bureaucracy and appointments. Both of which can be used to horrible horrible effect, as demonstrated by GWB.
A practice Ron Paul would continue at similar levels of shittiness if not exactly the same kind of shittiness. This is a guy who wants to end the Fed and you think we (as in, the world) would be fine with him appointing it's members????
Which is yet another way Obama is utterly completely different from any Republican candidate.
This shit doesn't get mentioned cause it doesn't involve votes and it isn't "sexy" so the news ignores it but it's REALLY REALLY REALLY fucking important. GWB did incredible amounts of damage putting idiots and cronies and corrupt fucks all over the federal bureaucracy (especially the regulatory areas) and Obama's been doing alot of work the past 3+ years cleaning house.
The GOP leadership may dogwhistle here and there about abortion rights or states rights or prayer in schools, but to my knowledge they have never had a candidate who openly said the outrageous, easily disproved, and thoroughly insane ideas Rick Santorum says on a repeated basis.
In my recollection, no candidate before has run on a platform of being:
- anti-birth control
- anti-education
- against women in the workforce
- against the separation of church and state
- anti-libertarian
- pro-criminalizing homosexuality
. . . all at the same time.
And he's doing well enough to carry about 2/5ths of the GOP vote at any given time.
Knowing whether or not this country can be saved from itself in the next 4-8 years is a pretty handy piece of info to have!
But god, nothing irks me more than people who harp on Obama for not being liberal enough. If there's a scale from 1-10 where Occupy protesters are 1 and Rick Santorum is 10, even if Obama is a 5, it seems pretty clear who you vote for. "But, but, indefinite detention!"
Yeah, that's okay, keep ignoring political realities. Go ahead and cast your protest vote. Idealism always works out pretty well, historically.
Maybe you should go talk to President Gore about the popular vote.
66% of Republicans consider Santorum liberal or moderate. They are already geared up to chalk his loss up to him not being Conservative enough.
Golddust costume.
It's fun?
I mean honestly what's the other discussion to have? It's not like the primaries allow any substantive policy debate.
Man, school is for snobs. Any kind of education is for snobs.
Eating with silverware? Snobs.
...how? How how how HOW HOW?!
What could they possibly want more of?
20% of poll respondents will always side on 'crazy'*. Which really says something about the congressional approval rating.
* various reasons for this: misinformed, misunderstood the question, just plain stupid.
And then I feel sad.