Washington (CNN) - As voters headed to the polls in Michigan on Tuesday, Rick Santorum defended a robo call his campaign used in the state urging Democrats to support its candidate as a vote against Mitt Romney.
But just a few weeks ago on a tele-town hall with Minnesota voters, Santorum decried the mere idea of open elections as polluting the entire primary process.
"We want the activists of the party, the people who make up the backbone of the Republican Party to have a say in who our nominee is as opposed to a bunch of people who don't even identify themselves as Republicans picking our nominee," Santorum told voters on the call held January 29. "I don't like that. I believe that states should only allow Republicans to vote in Republican primaries."
In stark contrast to his campaign's more recent courtship of Democrats, in January Santorum told Democrats that if they wanted to vote for a Republican, they should switch their party affiliation.
"It's the Republican nomination, not the independent nomination or the Democratic nomination," he said on the call. "If you're a Democrat and you want to be a Democrat, then vote in the Democratic primary, not the Republican. If you want to vote in the Republican Party then become one."
At the time, Santorum's main criticism was of Romney's success in the New Hampshire primary, where 53% of Republican primary participants did not identify themselves as Republicans. In the weeks following Romney's win in the Granite State, Santorum repeatedly cited that statistic in arguing that his rival's supporters was out of step with the mainstream GOP electorate. Now Santorum is hoping non-Republicans will help give him the edge in Romney's home state.
Everybody in this race is a huge hypocrite.
Similar to how Obama is a huge hypocrite for flopping on the SuperPAC issue?
Except for the whole thing where Obama's SuperPAC is doing full disclosure of who their money is coming from. That's kind of a big difference.
It is, but I still don't like it. Even if we knew the Koch brothers were giving shit tons of money to Romney PAC, it wouldn't make it that much better. It would still be a way for large donations to smother regular campaign donations. You know the Koch brothers free speech is totally 1 billion times more important than my speech.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Washington (CNN) - As voters headed to the polls in Michigan on Tuesday, Rick Santorum defended a robo call his campaign used in the state urging Democrats to support its candidate as a vote against Mitt Romney.
But just a few weeks ago on a tele-town hall with Minnesota voters, Santorum decried the mere idea of open elections as polluting the entire primary process.
"We want the activists of the party, the people who make up the backbone of the Republican Party to have a say in who our nominee is as opposed to a bunch of people who don't even identify themselves as Republicans picking our nominee," Santorum told voters on the call held January 29. "I don't like that. I believe that states should only allow Republicans to vote in Republican primaries."
In stark contrast to his campaign's more recent courtship of Democrats, in January Santorum told Democrats that if they wanted to vote for a Republican, they should switch their party affiliation.
"It's the Republican nomination, not the independent nomination or the Democratic nomination," he said on the call. "If you're a Democrat and you want to be a Democrat, then vote in the Democratic primary, not the Republican. If you want to vote in the Republican Party then become one."
At the time, Santorum's main criticism was of Romney's success in the New Hampshire primary, where 53% of Republican primary participants did not identify themselves as Republicans. In the weeks following Romney's win in the Granite State, Santorum repeatedly cited that statistic in arguing that his rival's supporters was out of step with the mainstream GOP electorate. Now Santorum is hoping non-Republicans will help give him the edge in Romney's home state.
Everybody in this race is a huge hypocrite.
Similar to how Obama is a huge hypocrite for flopping on the SuperPAC issue?
Nice false equivalence. There's a difference between admitting you were wrong and hoping that no one will catch you. Obama came out publicly and admitted that he was going to have to accept assistance from a superPAC. Santorum just hoped that no one would notice he was doing exactly what he criticized Romney for.
Well I mean they both said, "fuck it we need to win."
You can argue that one of them was more open about it, but I'm not convinced that being open about your hypocrisy means it isn't hypocrisy of a certain form.
I still think Obama's the better option, no need to gear up the witch hunt.
Washington (CNN) - As voters headed to the polls in Michigan on Tuesday, Rick Santorum defended a robo call his campaign used in the state urging Democrats to support its candidate as a vote against Mitt Romney.
But just a few weeks ago on a tele-town hall with Minnesota voters, Santorum decried the mere idea of open elections as polluting the entire primary process.
"We want the activists of the party, the people who make up the backbone of the Republican Party to have a say in who our nominee is as opposed to a bunch of people who don't even identify themselves as Republicans picking our nominee," Santorum told voters on the call held January 29. "I don't like that. I believe that states should only allow Republicans to vote in Republican primaries."
In stark contrast to his campaign's more recent courtship of Democrats, in January Santorum told Democrats that if they wanted to vote for a Republican, they should switch their party affiliation.
"It's the Republican nomination, not the independent nomination or the Democratic nomination," he said on the call. "If you're a Democrat and you want to be a Democrat, then vote in the Democratic primary, not the Republican. If you want to vote in the Republican Party then become one."
At the time, Santorum's main criticism was of Romney's success in the New Hampshire primary, where 53% of Republican primary participants did not identify themselves as Republicans. In the weeks following Romney's win in the Granite State, Santorum repeatedly cited that statistic in arguing that his rival's supporters was out of step with the mainstream GOP electorate. Now Santorum is hoping non-Republicans will help give him the edge in Romney's home state.
Everybody in this race is a huge hypocrite.
Similar to how Obama is a huge hypocrite for flopping on the SuperPAC issue?
Except for the whole thing where Obama's SuperPAC is doing full disclosure of who their money is coming from. That's kind of a big difference.
It is, but I still don't like it. Even if we knew the Koch brothers were giving shit tons of money to Romney PAC, it wouldn't make it that much better. It would still be a way for large donations to smother regular campaign donations. You know the Koch brothers free speech is totally 1 billion times more important than my speech.
Their speech isn't more important, they just have a LOT more to say than you do.
Unlike the other candidates Ron Paul is actually consistent.
In fact I think I saw something back last year which showed that Ron Paul has made the least false statements out of all the candidates and even then they were mostly misstatements, not outright lies.
Bachman on the other hand lied like 70% of the time.
And yet the Republican Party has he shall always be an "also ran."
I dont agree with RP on a lot of things, ut from what little I know, he seems to be pretty honest. Of course I could be hilariously uninformed and maybe he is just another scumbag instead of an honest but kinda crazy person.
What is it with people?
Ron Paul is honest, I'll give him that. He's also an awful, miserable excuse for a human being.
What is it with you? I think we were mostly in agreement save for the fact that I said "kinda" and your response implies "full on".
Sorry, it wasn't about you, it's more about the idea that "he's honest" is supposed to be good enough to like him at all.
Post was about Paul and people who say "he's consistent", not about you specifically. Apologies.
No worries. Honesty just happens to be a very important quality that I wish was exhibited by more political candidates.
Oh, I agree completely on that point. Honest is, after all, the best policy.
I think we can agree that Paul is just honestly awful.
Yeah, Obama really doesn't have a choice on the Super PAC front. If he and the democrats don't use them, they'll likely get crushed by the GOP who have no qualms. It's pretty much like a medieval army going "hey, cannons are pretty unfair, let's not use them against the other army that already has a bunch lined up to slaughter our side." You pretty much have to run with it and hope that you erase the other sides advantage because I can tell you if the GOP wins because of the money advantage Super PACs give them, good like pushing for an amendment to get rid of them. If the Dems keep the Super PACs from being the deciding factor that lets the GOP win at the very least, it makes it much easier to to get an amendment that will outright kill them.
BTW prediction.... Santorum wins in Michigan by like 4%. The effect of Dem crossovers is questionable at best, but superior enthusiasm carries the day for NotRomney.
Arizona goes Romney because Santorum's sweater vests are clearly not practical in triple digit weather and Romney has the Mexican bloc.
Washington (CNN) - As voters headed to the polls in Michigan on Tuesday, Rick Santorum defended a robo call his campaign used in the state urging Democrats to support its candidate as a vote against Mitt Romney.
But just a few weeks ago on a tele-town hall with Minnesota voters, Santorum decried the mere idea of open elections as polluting the entire primary process.
"We want the activists of the party, the people who make up the backbone of the Republican Party to have a say in who our nominee is as opposed to a bunch of people who don't even identify themselves as Republicans picking our nominee," Santorum told voters on the call held January 29. "I don't like that. I believe that states should only allow Republicans to vote in Republican primaries."
In stark contrast to his campaign's more recent courtship of Democrats, in January Santorum told Democrats that if they wanted to vote for a Republican, they should switch their party affiliation.
"It's the Republican nomination, not the independent nomination or the Democratic nomination," he said on the call. "If you're a Democrat and you want to be a Democrat, then vote in the Democratic primary, not the Republican. If you want to vote in the Republican Party then become one."
At the time, Santorum's main criticism was of Romney's success in the New Hampshire primary, where 53% of Republican primary participants did not identify themselves as Republicans. In the weeks following Romney's win in the Granite State, Santorum repeatedly cited that statistic in arguing that his rival's supporters was out of step with the mainstream GOP electorate. Now Santorum is hoping non-Republicans will help give him the edge in Romney's home state.
Everybody in this race is a huge hypocrite.
Similar to how Obama is a huge hypocrite for flopping on the SuperPAC issue?
Except for the whole thing where Obama's SuperPAC is doing full disclosure of who their money is coming from. That's kind of a big difference.
It is, but I still don't like it. Even if we knew the Koch brothers were giving shit tons of money to Romney PAC, it wouldn't make it that much better. It would still be a way for large donations to smother regular campaign donations. You know the Koch brothers free speech is totally 1 billion times more important than my speech.
Their speech isn't more important, they just have a LOT more to say than you do.
Isn't that seemingly standard political MO for the ____________ - "Just yell until the other side stops trying to speak. Then you've won."
Arizona goes Romney because Santorum's sweater vests are clearly not practical in triple digit weather and Romney has the Mexican bloc.
Arizona has a large Mormon population. That said, Santorum may appeal to many voters there. However, he's outgunned by Romney's funds which will hurt him spreading his message. With the proper backing it would be a very close race for Romney IMO.
BTW prediction.... Santorum wins in Michigan by like 4%. The effect of Dem crossovers is questionable at best, but superior enthusiasm carries the day for NotRomney.
Arizona goes Romney because Santorum's sweater vests are clearly not practical in triple digit weather and Romney has the Mexican bloc.
I think the bigger question is how do the delegates split - does Romney win the big areas and lose everything else, thereby only getting like 20% of the delegates, or do they back and forth through the state and it gets split evenly?
Washington (CNN) - As voters headed to the polls in Michigan on Tuesday, Rick Santorum defended a robo call his campaign used in the state urging Democrats to support its candidate as a vote against Mitt Romney.
But just a few weeks ago on a tele-town hall with Minnesota voters, Santorum decried the mere idea of open elections as polluting the entire primary process.
"We want the activists of the party, the people who make up the backbone of the Republican Party to have a say in who our nominee is as opposed to a bunch of people who don't even identify themselves as Republicans picking our nominee," Santorum told voters on the call held January 29. "I don't like that. I believe that states should only allow Republicans to vote in Republican primaries."
In stark contrast to his campaign's more recent courtship of Democrats, in January Santorum told Democrats that if they wanted to vote for a Republican, they should switch their party affiliation.
"It's the Republican nomination, not the independent nomination or the Democratic nomination," he said on the call. "If you're a Democrat and you want to be a Democrat, then vote in the Democratic primary, not the Republican. If you want to vote in the Republican Party then become one."
At the time, Santorum's main criticism was of Romney's success in the New Hampshire primary, where 53% of Republican primary participants did not identify themselves as Republicans. In the weeks following Romney's win in the Granite State, Santorum repeatedly cited that statistic in arguing that his rival's supporters was out of step with the mainstream GOP electorate. Now Santorum is hoping non-Republicans will help give him the edge in Romney's home state.
Everybody in this race is a huge hypocrite.
Similar to how Obama is a huge hypocrite for flopping on the SuperPAC issue?
Nice false equivalence. There's a difference between admitting you were wrong and hoping that no one will catch you. Obama came out publicly and admitted that he was going to have to accept assistance from a superPAC. Santorum just hoped that no one would notice he was doing exactly what he criticized Romney for.
Well I mean they both said, "fuck it we need to win."
You can argue that one of them was more open about it, but I'm not convinced that being open about your hypocrisy means it isn't hypocrisy of a certain form.
I still think Obama's the better option, no need to gear up the witch hunt.
He's as much a hypocrit as Warren Buffet is for thinking that the rich should be taxed more but not cutting the government a check for more money.
It's not being a hypocrit. This is silly. You can think something is bad but except that it has to be done.
....it makes it much easier to to get an amendment that will outright kill them.
But lets be honest, no matter who's president, they aren't going anywhere.
Let's not discount the coattail effect and there is nothing stopping the Super PACs who back a presidential candidate from also backing Senator and Representative candidates. Or the money backing a presidential candidate forcing the opposing side to spend more money fighting back instead of funneling it towards getting someone lower elected.
The trick is to get a Congress that is willing to get the ball rolling on the effort to kill Super PACs. Then we're kind of stuck hoping that the state legislators will do the right thing, which is why we need to convince that GOP that they can't win with them because they are already getting well acquainted with the damage that they cause.
I fully expect the general election to piss money people off because I suspect non-political campaign commercials be an endangered species.
Washington (CNN) - As voters headed to the polls in Michigan on Tuesday, Rick Santorum defended a robo call his campaign used in the state urging Democrats to support its candidate as a vote against Mitt Romney.
But just a few weeks ago on a tele-town hall with Minnesota voters, Santorum decried the mere idea of open elections as polluting the entire primary process.
"We want the activists of the party, the people who make up the backbone of the Republican Party to have a say in who our nominee is as opposed to a bunch of people who don't even identify themselves as Republicans picking our nominee," Santorum told voters on the call held January 29. "I don't like that. I believe that states should only allow Republicans to vote in Republican primaries."
In stark contrast to his campaign's more recent courtship of Democrats, in January Santorum told Democrats that if they wanted to vote for a Republican, they should switch their party affiliation.
"It's the Republican nomination, not the independent nomination or the Democratic nomination," he said on the call. "If you're a Democrat and you want to be a Democrat, then vote in the Democratic primary, not the Republican. If you want to vote in the Republican Party then become one."
At the time, Santorum's main criticism was of Romney's success in the New Hampshire primary, where 53% of Republican primary participants did not identify themselves as Republicans. In the weeks following Romney's win in the Granite State, Santorum repeatedly cited that statistic in arguing that his rival's supporters was out of step with the mainstream GOP electorate. Now Santorum is hoping non-Republicans will help give him the edge in Romney's home state.
Everybody in this race is a huge hypocrite.
Similar to how Obama is a huge hypocrite for flopping on the SuperPAC issue?
Nice false equivalence. There's a difference between admitting you were wrong and hoping that no one will catch you. Obama came out publicly and admitted that he was going to have to accept assistance from a superPAC. Santorum just hoped that no one would notice he was doing exactly what he criticized Romney for.
Well I mean they both said, "fuck it we need to win."
You can argue that one of them was more open about it, but I'm not convinced that being open about your hypocrisy means it isn't hypocrisy of a certain form.
I still think Obama's the better option, no need to gear up the witch hunt.
Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have.[1] Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.
hy·poc·ri·sy /hɪˈpɒkrəsi/ Show Spelled[hi-pok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural -sies.
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.
BTW prediction.... Santorum wins in Michigan by like 4%. The effect of Dem crossovers is questionable at best, but superior enthusiasm carries the day for NotRomney.
Arizona goes Romney because Santorum's sweater vests are clearly not practical in triple digit weather and Romney has the Mexican bloc.
I think the bigger question is how do the delegates split - does Romney win the big areas and lose everything else, thereby only getting like 20% of the delegates, or do they back and forth through the state and it gets split evenly?
Santorum will dominate on the west side of the state, and basically pick up all of those delegates. Romney will probably win the delegates from SE Michigan, as there are a lot of rich suburb types among the GOP ranks around here. But the bailout makes that a little more in doubt. As for the Republicans in the northern parts of the state, hell if I know. They're less of fundies than the Western bits, and certainly not as wealthy as the Detroit suburb types. If I were to guess, I think the delegate race here isno more than a gap of four.
And Arizona is winner take all, I believe, so Romney will have a good night mathematically speaking, though narratively speaking I am less sure.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Washington (CNN) - As voters headed to the polls in Michigan on Tuesday, Rick Santorum defended a robo call his campaign used in the state urging Democrats to support its candidate as a vote against Mitt Romney.
But just a few weeks ago on a tele-town hall with Minnesota voters, Santorum decried the mere idea of open elections as polluting the entire primary process.
"We want the activists of the party, the people who make up the backbone of the Republican Party to have a say in who our nominee is as opposed to a bunch of people who don't even identify themselves as Republicans picking our nominee," Santorum told voters on the call held January 29. "I don't like that. I believe that states should only allow Republicans to vote in Republican primaries."
In stark contrast to his campaign's more recent courtship of Democrats, in January Santorum told Democrats that if they wanted to vote for a Republican, they should switch their party affiliation.
"It's the Republican nomination, not the independent nomination or the Democratic nomination," he said on the call. "If you're a Democrat and you want to be a Democrat, then vote in the Democratic primary, not the Republican. If you want to vote in the Republican Party then become one."
At the time, Santorum's main criticism was of Romney's success in the New Hampshire primary, where 53% of Republican primary participants did not identify themselves as Republicans. In the weeks following Romney's win in the Granite State, Santorum repeatedly cited that statistic in arguing that his rival's supporters was out of step with the mainstream GOP electorate. Now Santorum is hoping non-Republicans will help give him the edge in Romney's home state.
Everybody in this race is a huge hypocrite.
Similar to how Obama is a huge hypocrite for flopping on the SuperPAC issue?
Nice false equivalence. There's a difference between admitting you were wrong and hoping that no one will catch you. Obama came out publicly and admitted that he was going to have to accept assistance from a superPAC. Santorum just hoped that no one would notice he was doing exactly what he criticized Romney for.
Well I mean they both said, "fuck it we need to win."
You can argue that one of them was more open about it, but I'm not convinced that being open about your hypocrisy means it isn't hypocrisy of a certain form.
I still think Obama's the better option, no need to gear up the witch hunt.
He's as much a hypocrit as Warren Buffet is for thinking that the rich should be taxed more but not cutting the government a check for more money.
It's not being a hypocrit. This is silly. You can think something is bad but except that it has to be done.
Doesn't he have absurdly low taxes? IIRC he's still incredibly conservative. His appearance on Born Rich wasn't good.
BTW prediction.... Santorum wins in Michigan by like 4%. The effect of Dem crossovers is questionable at best, but superior enthusiasm carries the day for NotRomney.
Arizona goes Romney because Santorum's sweater vests are clearly not practical in triple digit weather and Romney has the Mexican bloc.
I think the bigger question is how do the delegates split - does Romney win the big areas and lose everything else, thereby only getting like 20% of the delegates, or do they back and forth through the state and it gets split evenly?
Santorum will dominate on the west side of the state, and basically pick up all of those delegates. Romney will probably win the delegates from SE Michigan, as there are a lot of rich suburb types among the GOP ranks around here. But the bailout makes that a little more in doubt. As for the Republicans in the northern parts of the state, hell if I know. They're less of fundies than the Western bits, and certainly not as wealthy as the Detroit suburb types. If I were to guess, I think the delegate race here isno more than a gap of four.
And Arizona is winner take all, I believe, so Romney will have a good night mathematically speaking, though narratively speaking I am less sure.
If he gets even one fewer delegate than Santorum, the narrative will be apocalyptic.
If he dominates Santorum, the narrative will be more eucalyptic.
Washington (CNN) - As voters headed to the polls in Michigan on Tuesday, Rick Santorum defended a robo call his campaign used in the state urging Democrats to support its candidate as a vote against Mitt Romney.
But just a few weeks ago on a tele-town hall with Minnesota voters, Santorum decried the mere idea of open elections as polluting the entire primary process.
"We want the activists of the party, the people who make up the backbone of the Republican Party to have a say in who our nominee is as opposed to a bunch of people who don't even identify themselves as Republicans picking our nominee," Santorum told voters on the call held January 29. "I don't like that. I believe that states should only allow Republicans to vote in Republican primaries."
In stark contrast to his campaign's more recent courtship of Democrats, in January Santorum told Democrats that if they wanted to vote for a Republican, they should switch their party affiliation.
"It's the Republican nomination, not the independent nomination or the Democratic nomination," he said on the call. "If you're a Democrat and you want to be a Democrat, then vote in the Democratic primary, not the Republican. If you want to vote in the Republican Party then become one."
At the time, Santorum's main criticism was of Romney's success in the New Hampshire primary, where 53% of Republican primary participants did not identify themselves as Republicans. In the weeks following Romney's win in the Granite State, Santorum repeatedly cited that statistic in arguing that his rival's supporters was out of step with the mainstream GOP electorate. Now Santorum is hoping non-Republicans will help give him the edge in Romney's home state.
Everybody in this race is a huge hypocrite.
Similar to how Obama is a huge hypocrite for flopping on the SuperPAC issue?
Nice false equivalence. There's a difference between admitting you were wrong and hoping that no one will catch you. Obama came out publicly and admitted that he was going to have to accept assistance from a superPAC. Santorum just hoped that no one would notice he was doing exactly what he criticized Romney for.
Well I mean they both said, "fuck it we need to win."
You can argue that one of them was more open about it, but I'm not convinced that being open about your hypocrisy means it isn't hypocrisy of a certain form.
I still think Obama's the better option, no need to gear up the witch hunt.
Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have.[1] Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.
hy·poc·ri·sy /hɪˈpɒkrəsi/ Show Spelled[hi-pok-ruh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural -sies.
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.
OK, fine, I'll revise the verb tense of my statement: Santorum is a hypocrite, Obama was a hypocrite for pretending to be against the Super PAC practices and then joining in when he decided "fuck it we need to win". He's not a hypocrite anymore though, because while he's participating in terrible practices out of a sense of necessity, at least he's doing so openly.
There, satisfied? I'm not sure there's a huge moral difference between ^this^ and my original statement.
Washington (CNN) - As voters headed to the polls in Michigan on Tuesday, Rick Santorum defended a robo call his campaign used in the state urging Democrats to support its candidate as a vote against Mitt Romney.
But just a few weeks ago on a tele-town hall with Minnesota voters, Santorum decried the mere idea of open elections as polluting the entire primary process.
"We want the activists of the party, the people who make up the backbone of the Republican Party to have a say in who our nominee is as opposed to a bunch of people who don't even identify themselves as Republicans picking our nominee," Santorum told voters on the call held January 29. "I don't like that. I believe that states should only allow Republicans to vote in Republican primaries."
In stark contrast to his campaign's more recent courtship of Democrats, in January Santorum told Democrats that if they wanted to vote for a Republican, they should switch their party affiliation.
"It's the Republican nomination, not the independent nomination or the Democratic nomination," he said on the call. "If you're a Democrat and you want to be a Democrat, then vote in the Democratic primary, not the Republican. If you want to vote in the Republican Party then become one."
At the time, Santorum's main criticism was of Romney's success in the New Hampshire primary, where 53% of Republican primary participants did not identify themselves as Republicans. In the weeks following Romney's win in the Granite State, Santorum repeatedly cited that statistic in arguing that his rival's supporters was out of step with the mainstream GOP electorate. Now Santorum is hoping non-Republicans will help give him the edge in Romney's home state.
Everybody in this race is a huge hypocrite.
Similar to how Obama is a huge hypocrite for flopping on the SuperPAC issue?
Nice false equivalence. There's a difference between admitting you were wrong and hoping that no one will catch you. Obama came out publicly and admitted that he was going to have to accept assistance from a superPAC. Santorum just hoped that no one would notice he was doing exactly what he criticized Romney for.
Well I mean they both said, "fuck it we need to win."
You can argue that one of them was more open about it, but I'm not convinced that being open about your hypocrisy means it isn't hypocrisy of a certain form.
I still think Obama's the better option, no need to gear up the witch hunt.
He's as much a hypocrit as Warren Buffet is for thinking that the rich should be taxed more but not cutting the government a check for more money.
It's not being a hypocrit. This is silly. You can think something is bad but except that it has to be done.
Doesn't he have absurdly low taxes? IIRC he's still incredibly conservative. His appearance on Born Rich wasn't good.
Washington (CNN) - As voters headed to the polls in Michigan on Tuesday, Rick Santorum defended a robo call his campaign used in the state urging Democrats to support its candidate as a vote against Mitt Romney.
But just a few weeks ago on a tele-town hall with Minnesota voters, Santorum decried the mere idea of open elections as polluting the entire primary process.
"We want the activists of the party, the people who make up the backbone of the Republican Party to have a say in who our nominee is as opposed to a bunch of people who don't even identify themselves as Republicans picking our nominee," Santorum told voters on the call held January 29. "I don't like that. I believe that states should only allow Republicans to vote in Republican primaries."
In stark contrast to his campaign's more recent courtship of Democrats, in January Santorum told Democrats that if they wanted to vote for a Republican, they should switch their party affiliation.
"It's the Republican nomination, not the independent nomination or the Democratic nomination," he said on the call. "If you're a Democrat and you want to be a Democrat, then vote in the Democratic primary, not the Republican. If you want to vote in the Republican Party then become one."
At the time, Santorum's main criticism was of Romney's success in the New Hampshire primary, where 53% of Republican primary participants did not identify themselves as Republicans. In the weeks following Romney's win in the Granite State, Santorum repeatedly cited that statistic in arguing that his rival's supporters was out of step with the mainstream GOP electorate. Now Santorum is hoping non-Republicans will help give him the edge in Romney's home state.
Everybody in this race is a huge hypocrite.
Similar to how Obama is a huge hypocrite for flopping on the SuperPAC issue?
Nice false equivalence. There's a difference between admitting you were wrong and hoping that no one will catch you. Obama came out publicly and admitted that he was going to have to accept assistance from a superPAC. Santorum just hoped that no one would notice he was doing exactly what he criticized Romney for.
Well I mean they both said, "fuck it we need to win."
You can argue that one of them was more open about it, but I'm not convinced that being open about your hypocrisy means it isn't hypocrisy of a certain form.
I still think Obama's the better option, no need to gear up the witch hunt.
He's as much a hypocrit as Warren Buffet is for thinking that the rich should be taxed more but not cutting the government a check for more money.
It's not being a hypocrit. This is silly. You can think something is bad but except that it has to be done.
Doesn't he have absurdly low taxes? IIRC he's still incredibly conservative. His appearance on Born Rich wasn't good.
Buffett does indeed have absurdly low taxes, even without gaming the system. He just thinks that's stupid and he should be required to pay more. And he is pretty reliably Democratic, though calling him liberal is a bit of a stretch.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It's probably a moot argument, but are we sure that Obama was always going to not go the Super PAC route? It might have been the case where he has a grand decision and then reality nips at his heels.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time.
If that's the case I don't know that that makes him a hypocrite.
Trump at it again with 2.50/gal gasoline nonsense. Riling up some of my idiot friends who don't understand supply, demand, and peak oil.
Well, to be fair to them, if we let the GOP tank the world economy again gas prices will go down.
I know that was part snark and part truth, but would another major collapse reduce demand that much? I'm asking this in all sincerity. I have trouble believing that we'll ever see oil below 80/barrel in our lifetime barring some major advances in alternative energy.
Trump at it again with 2.50/gal gasoline nonsense. Riling up some of my idiot friends who don't understand supply, demand, and peak oil.
Well, to be fair to them, if we let the GOP tank the world economy again gas prices will go down.
I know that was part snark and part truth, but would another major collapse reduce demand that much? I'm asking this in all sincerity. I have trouble believing that we'll ever see oil below 80/barrel in our lifetime barring some major advances in alternative energy.
Demand is already low (in this country). At the moment speculation is a major part of the high prices.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
It's probably a moot argument, but are we sure that Obama was always going to not go the Super PAC route? It might have been the case where he has a grand decision and then reality nips at his heels.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time.
If that's the case I don't know that that makes him a hypocrite.
If that's the case (where he just didn't see the necessity or didn't realize they were going to be such a huge problem) then I would think that makes him somewhat short-sighted. I would also worry about his ability to see some of the more wide-ranging ramifications of the decisions that are made by the legislature, courts, and even himself.
Trump at it again with 2.50/gal gasoline nonsense. Riling up some of my idiot friends who don't understand supply, demand, and peak oil.
Well, to be fair to them, if we let the GOP tank the world economy again gas prices will go down.
I know that was part snark and part truth, but would another major collapse reduce demand that much? I'm asking this in all sincerity. I have trouble believing that we'll ever see oil below 80/barrel in our lifetime barring some major advances in alternative energy.
Well, I only say it because that's the reason gas prices bottomed out in 2008 so if there's a similar drop in demand the prices would go down a bit, but then jump straight back up (like they did).
I too think that it's unrealistic to see low oil prices in our life time. Even with alternative energy, we need oil for a lot of things and every day there's less of it.
Prediction time;
Romney will win the popular vote in Michigan by 2, maybe 3 percentage points. Santorum will win more districts, and more Michigan delegates.
Arizona will go to Romney, but by a smaller margin than some are expecting.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Prediction time;
Romney will win the popular vote in Michigan by 2, maybe 3 percentage points. Santorum will win more districts, and more Michigan delegates.
Arizona will go to Romney, but by a smaller margin than some are expecting.
I think I can approve of this prediction.
the fun part will be if this happens, what does the media do?
Prediction time;
Romney will win the popular vote in Michigan by 2, maybe 3 percentage points. Santorum will win more districts, and more Michigan delegates.
Arizona will go to Romney, but by a smaller margin than some are expecting.
I think I can approve of this prediction.
the fun part will be if this happens, what does the media do?
Tac on more super delegatesunpledged delegates to Romney's numbers to keep the narrative.
Posts
It is, but I still don't like it. Even if we knew the Koch brothers were giving shit tons of money to Romney PAC, it wouldn't make it that much better. It would still be a way for large donations to smother regular campaign donations. You know the Koch brothers free speech is totally 1 billion times more important than my speech.
Well I mean they both said, "fuck it we need to win."
You can argue that one of them was more open about it, but I'm not convinced that being open about your hypocrisy means it isn't hypocrisy of a certain form.
I still think Obama's the better option, no need to gear up the witch hunt.
Their speech isn't more important, they just have a LOT more to say than you do.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Oh, I agree completely on that point. Honest is, after all, the best policy.
I think we can agree that Paul is just honestly awful.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Arizona goes Romney because Santorum's sweater vests are clearly not practical in triple digit weather and Romney has the Mexican bloc.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
But lets be honest, no matter who's president, they aren't going anywhere.
Isn't that seemingly standard political MO for the ____________ - "Just yell until the other side stops trying to speak. Then you've won."
Arizona has a large Mormon population. That said, Santorum may appeal to many voters there. However, he's outgunned by Romney's funds which will hurt him spreading his message. With the proper backing it would be a very close race for Romney IMO.
I think the bigger question is how do the delegates split - does Romney win the big areas and lose everything else, thereby only getting like 20% of the delegates, or do they back and forth through the state and it gets split evenly?
He's as much a hypocrit as Warren Buffet is for thinking that the rich should be taxed more but not cutting the government a check for more money.
It's not being a hypocrit. This is silly. You can think something is bad but except that it has to be done.
Let's not discount the coattail effect and there is nothing stopping the Super PACs who back a presidential candidate from also backing Senator and Representative candidates. Or the money backing a presidential candidate forcing the opposing side to spend more money fighting back instead of funneling it towards getting someone lower elected.
The trick is to get a Congress that is willing to get the ball rolling on the effort to kill Super PACs. Then we're kind of stuck hoping that the state legislators will do the right thing, which is why we need to convince that GOP that they can't win with them because they are already getting well acquainted with the damage that they cause.
I fully expect the general election to piss money people off because I suspect non-political campaign commercials be an endangered species.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Trump at it again with 2.50/gal gasoline nonsense. Riling up some of my idiot friends who don't understand supply, demand, and peak oil.
Santorum will dominate on the west side of the state, and basically pick up all of those delegates. Romney will probably win the delegates from SE Michigan, as there are a lot of rich suburb types among the GOP ranks around here. But the bailout makes that a little more in doubt. As for the Republicans in the northern parts of the state, hell if I know. They're less of fundies than the Western bits, and certainly not as wealthy as the Detroit suburb types. If I were to guess, I think the delegate race here isno more than a gap of four.
And Arizona is winner take all, I believe, so Romney will have a good night mathematically speaking, though narratively speaking I am less sure.
Well, to be fair to them, if we let the GOP tank the world economy again gas prices will go down.
Doesn't he have absurdly low taxes? IIRC he's still incredibly conservative. His appearance on Born Rich wasn't good.
If he gets even one fewer delegate than Santorum, the narrative will be apocalyptic.
If he dominates Santorum, the narrative will be more eucalyptic.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
OK, fine, I'll revise the verb tense of my statement: Santorum is a hypocrite, Obama was a hypocrite for pretending to be against the Super PAC practices and then joining in when he decided "fuck it we need to win". He's not a hypocrite anymore though, because while he's participating in terrible practices out of a sense of necessity, at least he's doing so openly.
There, satisfied? I'm not sure there's a huge moral difference between ^this^ and my original statement.
I still like this graph.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
He is absurdly rich which means he has very low taxes and often comes out in favor of raising the amount his tax bracket pays. Like this http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/10/27/most-millionaires-support-warren-buffetts-tax-on-the-rich/
Buffett does indeed have absurdly low taxes, even without gaming the system. He just thinks that's stupid and he should be required to pay more. And he is pretty reliably Democratic, though calling him liberal is a bit of a stretch.
John Fucking Madden!
That's what came to mind when I saw that graph.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time.
If that's the case I don't know that that makes him a hypocrite.
I know that was part snark and part truth, but would another major collapse reduce demand that much? I'm asking this in all sincerity. I have trouble believing that we'll ever see oil below 80/barrel in our lifetime barring some major advances in alternative energy.
Demand is already low (in this country). At the moment speculation is a major part of the high prices.
If that's the case (where he just didn't see the necessity or didn't realize they were going to be such a huge problem) then I would think that makes him somewhat short-sighted. I would also worry about his ability to see some of the more wide-ranging ramifications of the decisions that are made by the legislature, courts, and even himself.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Well, I only say it because that's the reason gas prices bottomed out in 2008 so if there's a similar drop in demand the prices would go down a bit, but then jump straight back up (like they did).
I too think that it's unrealistic to see low oil prices in our life time. Even with alternative energy, we need oil for a lot of things and every day there's less of it.
Romney will win the popular vote in Michigan by 2, maybe 3 percentage points. Santorum will win more districts, and more Michigan delegates.
Arizona will go to Romney, but by a smaller margin than some are expecting.
I think I can approve of this prediction.
the fun part will be if this happens, what does the media do?
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Tac on more super delegatesunpledged delegates to Romney's numbers to keep the narrative.
What's with the lines that bend backwards? Did they mess up while entering the data or something? They do seem aligned on all candidates, at least.
Certainly serves to make the graph look even more Lovecraftian, though.