Not that Rick "you should be imprisoned for having the wrong kind of consensual sex with your spouse" Santorum is much better than Bachmann.
I'm not sure whether I'm more pleased or despressed by this. Pleased that the GOP might seriously put forward someone totally unelectable, or depressed that such a bigoted jackanapes is supported by so many other bigots.
I don't remember if I posted this, or deleted on consideration but Santorum and Bachmann are the only two people that I could not tolerate being in office.
Which is to say, I would devote myself to having them tarred and feathered.
I am worried and not, along the same lines as Mannahnin. I'm not too worried because crazy people can't hide their craziness for long among reasonable folks -- but I am worried because these crazies haven't hidden much; at least not the things that I would want to hide if I was a crazy person running for office.
Honestly, based on my knowledge of political history, which I will delve into after I've slept off the "Primary Party" fun, tells me that Romney has it.
He's held strong where challengers have fluctuated, and really only Paul is left if the numbers are to be believed.
I have to admit that when I saw the news about Santorum I was a little surprised. Anomaly? I agree that Romney has it so I suppose the question is whether this is going to have to make him hitch his VP wagon to Santorum or not. Little early to say, but I really couldn't predicted his placing as he did.
I know the media places great faith in Iowa as a king maker. But the Iowa caucus controls 7 of the 1100 delegates needed to win nomination and represents a 95% white state that defintly doesn't represent the electablility of a candidate in the Presidential election.
So while people are saying Ron Paul may be the crazier of the candidates. Have you considered that crazy is perhaps what the people want or the country feels it needs?
The pendulum swung hard to the whacky left with Obama, chances are it will swing hard to the whacky right with Paul.
Just an idea. Odds are stacked against him though, but his numbers for support this year are much much higher than they were 4 years ago. So who knows.
The Republican party has for quite awhile had a precident of saying "oh it's so and so's turn." and then there is the nomination. Sad but true, this is how McCain was picked, and why Romney looks like the likely choice. Because it would be Romneys "turn."
I don't think that Romney is the likely choice because it's "his turn." If the Republicans had a more electable candidate it wouldn't matter two gaks whose "turn" it was. The trouble is that they don't have a more electable candidate -- certainly not Ron Paul. For another thing, Obama is a long way from "wacky left;" it takes a radically right-polarized rhetoric to paint him as anything but an establishment centrist. But a radically right-polarized rhetoric is exactly what characterizes the tenor of public life in America today, I won't deny it.
Manchu wrote:I don't think that Romney is the likely choice because it's "his turn." If the Republicans had a more electable candidate it wouldn't matter two gaks whose "turn" it was. The trouble is that they don't have a more electable candidate -- certainly not Ron Paul. For another thing, Obama is a long way from "wacky left;" it takes a radically right-polarized rhetoric to paint him as anything but an establishment centrist. But a radically right-polarized rhetoric is exactly what characterizes the tenor of public life in America today, I won't deny it.
Thats your opinion. Many do in fact view Obama as "wacky left." Many more view him as "incompetent."
Remember, an incumbent election is not about the new candidate. Its always a referendum about the incumbent.
Manchu wrote:I don't think that Romney is the likely choice because it's "his turn." If the Republicans had a more electable candidate it wouldn't matter two gaks whose "turn" it was. The trouble is that they don't have a more electable candidate -- certainly not Ron Paul. For another thing, Obama is a long way from "wacky left;" it takes a radically right-polarized rhetoric to paint him as anything but an establishment centrist. But a radically right-polarized rhetoric is exactly what characterizes the tenor of public life in America today, I won't deny it.
Thats your opinion. Many do in fact view Obama as "wacky left." Many more view him as "incompetent."
Remember, an incumbent election is not about the new candidate. Its always a referendum about the incumbent.
Right, but since the predominant belief about obama is actually not that he's wacky left. The bulk of regular people who aren't in the fringe fall more into the "obama is meh" category, in which case the correct play is to bring in someone with a safer more fatherly vibe, not someone who is going to look insane next to him and help him seem like the safe choice.
Running against the incumbent with a radical position always makes the incumbent look safe by comparison. The whole "obama is evil" narrative is not reliable enough to win an entire election.
Santorum's success is both novel and depressing, but it bears mentioning that he basically hit up every single door in Iowa, personally campaigning in something like 90 counties.
That sort of pace, in my opinion, is simply not one that can be sustained. And as the caucuses progress to less religiously-right states, his second-coming-of-christ act is going to have less impact.
I think he's peaked, and Huntsman might finally get a chance to shine a bit brighter.
sourclams wrote:Santorum's success is both novel and depressing, but it bears mentioning that he basically hit up every single door in Iowa, personally campaigning in something like 90 counties.
That sort of pace, in my opinion, is simply not one that can be sustained. And as the caucuses progress to less religiously-right states, his second-coming-of-christ act is going to have less impact.
I think he's peaked, and Huntsman might finally get a chance to shine a bit brighter.
I agree, but in theory, this could net him a lot of money and people that he could use to develop a real national campaign.
Manchu wrote:I don't think that Romney is the likely choice because it's "his turn." If the Republicans had a more electable candidate it wouldn't matter two gaks whose "turn" it was. The trouble is that they don't have a more electable candidate -- certainly not Ron Paul. For another thing, Obama is a long way from "wacky left;" it takes a radically right-polarized rhetoric to paint him as anything but an establishment centrist. But a radically right-polarized rhetoric is exactly what characterizes the tenor of public life in America today, I won't deny it.
Thats your opinion. Many do in fact view Obama as "wacky left." Many more view him as "incompetent."
Remember, an incumbent election is not about the new candidate. Its always a referendum about the incumbent.
Right, but since the predominant belief about obama is actually not that he's wacky left. .
Predominant belief by who? You?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Running against the incumbent with a radical position always makes the incumbent look safe by comparison. The whole "obama is evil" narrative is not reliable enough to win an entire election.
No, they just run on the "Obama is incompetent and can't get you a job," platform and win.
Rented Tritium wrote:I agree, but in theory, this could net him a lot of money and people that he could use to develop a real national campaign.
Yeah, very true, but he still "didn't win" Iowa and he's got so little organization in place that New Hampshire is likely too soon to allow him to really capitalize on cash inflows. I think he loses momentum.
I have a feeling Obama will become our generations Carter. The WTF were we thinking one term president. Not nearly as wacky but hey you can't win them all.
I'm waiting for the religious right to trot out some gem like a black president signals the coming of the apocalypse, it's in the bible. And watching some of the candidates try to twist that into something that's not racist while thy pander to their favorite demographic.
sourclams wrote:Santorum's success is both novel and depressing, but it bears mentioning that he basically hit up every single door in Iowa, personally campaigning in something like 90 counties.
That sort of pace, in my opinion, is simply not one that can be sustained. And as the caucuses progress to less religiously-right states, his second-coming-of-christ act is going to have less impact.
I think he actually hit all 99, which helped a bunch given the relatively low turnout in the caucuses.
sourclams wrote:I think he's peaked, and Huntsman might finally get a chance to shine a bit brighter.
He is, admittedly, the next candidate to peak as the "not Romney" candidate. Time will tell if Santorum can retain that momentum.
I don't think Huntsman will ever really get a chance to shine. His support has always been low and he didn't participate in a some debates because of it. Now that we're past Iowa, it's unlikely that we'll see the large shifts of support from one candidate to another.
Rick Santorum was my local Representative when I lived in Pittsburgh. The thing Santorum has done well in his political career is pandering to the ultra right wing. Which not coincidentally don't like Romney. Everyone remember Howard Dean? Same thing on the other side of the spectrum, and we see how that ended for him.
Note that I say "pander" because I was told by someone who was in position to know that Rick's personal politics have...evolved since he was a younger man. Which was obviously a fairly astute career move. Figure he rose from being the junior Senator from PA to what, the #3 man in the Senate at his career peak? Obviously the miscalculation was that he grew far too conservative for a purple state like PA, and got his butt booted outta office.
Also note that I'm not saying this phenomenon is exactly exclusive to Santorum, LOL.
Also, painting the opposition as totally evil and destroying the country is something you have to go all-in on. You can't just dabble in it. You have to go completely 100% into it. I don't think they're willing to do that and if they did, the risk of backfiring and making them look like fringe radicals is high.
Under those conditions, the correct play is to put up someone who looks more stable and more safe.
Rented Tritium wrote:Also, painting the opposition as totally evil and destroying the country is something you have to go all-in on. You can't just dabble in it. You have to go completely 100% into it. I don't think they're willing to do that and if they did, the risk of backfiring and making them look like fringe radicals is high.
The Democrats dabbled in it during Obama's campaign and did quite well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Frazzled, we already see that. In just about every poll for the least year, he's scored better than any of the major republican candidates.
That's pre-campaign, though, which is a key variable.
Of course, being the incumbent, he should see a 4-5 point bump once his opponent is set. Especially if that opponent is someone like Santorum.
Right, but since the predominant belief about obama is actually not that he's wacky left. .
Predominant belief by who? You?
The only people who actually believe he's wacky left are going to vote for ANYONE with an R by their name either way, so we can ignore them in any tactical discussion.
Real actual regular people don't believe the things coming out of the echo chambers. On the far right they are saying obama is the antichrist or whatever they new business is and regular people are more like "Obama is meh".
Thus, romney is the best call as he's the one who better plays into that attitude. A more fringe candidate makes those "obama is meh" people turn into "obama is not that bad, this guy is nutso" people, which is obviously not what you want.
The aura you want a republican candidate to exude right now is more calm like a new boss sent in as a fixer. He needs to be like "Everything is going to be fine, I'm here now, we're going to fix it. It's going to be ok".
Pandering to the fear and crazytalk about obama wanting to destroy us or whatever is going to turn off the middle of the road guys more than anything and charge up the people who were GOING to vote for a republican no matter WHAT happened.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Running against the incumbent with a radical position always makes the incumbent look safe by comparison. The whole "obama is evil" narrative is not reliable enough to win an entire election.
No, they just run on the "Obama is incompetent and can't get you a job," platform and win.
Seems like you're putting on the team colors here, man. I'm talking about strategy. I'm voting for Obama either way for a variety of reasons I don't want to talk about here. My posts are about what I think the best strategy for beating Obama is and I think that strategy involves Mitt Romney being calm and friendly.
Rented Tritium wrote:Also, painting the opposition as totally evil and destroying the country is something you have to go all-in on. You can't just dabble in it. You have to go completely 100% into it. I don't think they're willing to do that and if they did, the risk of backfiring and making them look like fringe radicals is high.
Under those conditions, the correct play is to put up someone who looks more stable and more safe.
Rented Tritium wrote:Also, painting the opposition as totally evil and destroying the country is something you have to go all-in on. You can't just dabble in it. You have to go completely 100% into it. I don't think they're willing to do that and if they did, the risk of backfiring and making them look like fringe radicals is high.
Under those conditions, the correct play is to put up someone who looks more stable and more safe.
If Obama is going to paint the republicans as extremists who want to destroy everything, he's going to need to go all-in or it will end up hurting him.
If he does, it STILL might hurt him. It's risky on a lot of levels.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled, I get the impression you think I am here to shill for Obama or something? I am trying to analyze strategy. I'd appreciate it if you left our personal politics out of it.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Pandering to the fear and crazytalk about obama wanting to destroy us or whatever is going to turn off the middle of the road guys more than anything and charge up the people who were GOING to vote for a republican no matter WHAT happened.
That assumes they were going to vote. Lots of people don't.
Hell, I don't vote and I study this stuff for a living.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Real actual regular people don't believe the things coming out of the echo chambers.
Have you participated in a political discussion in the United States of America?
I have. Is that supposed to be a point? You realize that the average crazy on the internet does not actually represent regular people. Regular people are barely aware of day to day political happenings. Generally, if you are having a heated discussion AT ALL, you are already dealing with the fringe. Most people barely watch any news.
None of that hurt Bush, so I'm not sure why it would hurt Obama. Other than the "Lol, he's a Democrat and therefore soft on Defense." argument.
Rented Tritium wrote:
I have. Is that supposed to be a point? You realize that the average crazy on the internet does not actually represent regular people. Regular people are barely aware of day to day political happenings. Generally, if you are having a heated discussion AT ALL, you are already dealing with the fringe. Most people barely watch any news.
Which is actually my point. People that don't pay attention get taken in by the noise machine, that's why the noise machine exists.
American politics operates on principles very similar to marketing. Hell, the most lucrative career path for me, given my degrees in political science, is marketing.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Real actual regular people don't believe the things coming out of the echo chambers.
Have you participated in a political discussion in the United States of America?
This. IIRC, wasn't there a poll showing that a majority of Republicans were birthers?
So less than 25% of America.
Now if you polled further, what percentage of them are really serious about it and what percentage are like "oh I heard that was true at the barbershop".
Rented Tritium wrote:
So less than 25% of America.
Now if you polled further, what percentage of them are really serious about it and what percentage are like "oh I heard that was true at the barbershop".
It's not actually as huge as it sounds.
As regards those people who believe what comes out of the echo chamber, yes it is.
I suppose I should add that this goes both ways. I've been in many a coffee shop in my time (This one up the road makes bomb apple fritters.), and I often hear the "Ron Paul is racist." or "Rick Perry hunts black people." shtick. People believe this stuff. Regular people. Average people who are average, and therefore not very good.
Right, but since the predominant belief about obama is actually not that he's wacky left. .
Predominant belief by who? You?
The only people who actually believe he's wacky left are going to vote for ANYONE with an R by their name either way, so we can ignore them in any tactical discussion.
Real actual regular people don't believe the things coming out of the echo chambers. On the far right they are saying obama is the antichrist or whatever they new business is and regular people are more like "Obama is meh".
Thus, romney is the best call as he's the one who better plays into that attitude. A more fringe candidate makes those "obama is meh" people turn into "obama is not that bad, this guy is nutso" people, which is obviously not what you want.
The aura you want a republican candidate to exude right now is more calm like a new boss sent in as a fixer. He needs to be like "Everything is going to be fine, I'm here now, we're going to fix it. It's going to be ok".
Pandering to the fear and crazytalk about obama wanting to destroy us or whatever is going to turn off the middle of the road guys more than anything and charge up the people who were GOING to vote for a republican no matter WHAT happened.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Running against the incumbent with a radical position always makes the incumbent look safe by comparison. The whole "obama is evil" narrative is not reliable enough to win an entire election.
No, they just run on the "Obama is incompetent and can't get you a job," platform and win.
Seems like you're putting on the team colors here, man. I'm talking about strategy. I'm voting for Obama either way for a variety of reasons I don't want to talk about here. My posts are about what I think the best strategy for beating Obama is and I think that strategy involves Mitt Romney being calm and friendly.
We're agreeing on all fronts. I'm just saying the Republicans can, and should, be most heavily pushing the Clinton "Its the Economy Stupid" attack. If they elect Romney, thats what they will do, and why the Obama administration keeps throwing under the radar attacks at him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Hell, I don't vote and I study this stuff for a living.
Maybe thats why you don't vote? You've seen the sausage making in action.
Frazzled wrote:why the Obama administration keeps throwing under the radar attacks at him.
I actually think that the Obama campaign believes the republicans are going to go far right instead of friendly center. And if that IS the case, then painting them as crazy radicals might be a better play. That might explain why that's been happening a little bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If Obama does decide to play against republicans going far right, they can just go center instead and it makes him look pretty mean.
Political campaigns never operate on a single message. One message might be targeted to a broader audience than another, but there's always more than one.
No official statement made by anyone explicitly affiliated with Obama will be based on the GOP candidate being a radical, but that message will be disseminated via other means.
dogma wrote:Political campaigns never operate on a single message. One message might be targeted to a broader audience than another, but there's always more than one.
No official statement made by anyone explicitly affiliated with Obama will be based on the GOP candidate being a radical, but that message will be disseminated via other means.
Rented Tritium wrote:If Obama does decide to play against republicans going far right, they can just go center instead and it makes him look pretty mean.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the off chance that someone insane gets the nomination, then it was a good play. If romney gets it though, saying things like that really hurts him.
Well, expecting the Repubs to go Far Right could be a rational calculation. After their drubbing to Obama in 2012, the conclusion many Repub pundits made was that they hadn't gone conservative enough, and hence lost.
I think the wins in the 2010 mid-terms may only reinforce this thinking. Hence, it would make sense that the Repubs would go Far Right.
However, Romney may not be the guy who can pull that off, and therefore the Romney cmapaign should avoid such an strategy. Here comes the big BUT. In order to motivate the base, Romney may have try to go far right anyway.
Elections are won by getting more of your people out to vote than the other guy. Independnets generally all ready lean one way or another, so "true" nuetrals don't really exist or are a very small number. If you motivate the base; you motivate the leaners too.
The question in my mind, is who can get the base out in the key states.
Why? I'd proffer the only ones paying attention on the D side currently are hardcores, and he's taken the strategic step of focusing on core constituencies, and getting them out. Right now he's trying to drum money and troopers. The "try to get everyone else" will occur later.
Easy E wrote:Well, expecting the Repubs to go Far Right could be a rational calculation. After their drubbing to Obama in 2012, the conclusion many Repub pundits made was that they hadn't gone conservative enough, and hence lost.
It's a bad call to make a move this early based on an expected strategy that you haven't confirmed they're even using yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Wait, they just did that actually.
Why? I'd proffer the only ones paying attention on the D side currently are hardcores, and he's taken the strategic step of focusing on core constituencies, and getting them out. Right now he's trying to drum money and troopers. The "try to get everyone else" will occur later.
That's true, but the risk is that this will get picked up by the republicans and bandied about. They can put up romney and wave that post around like, "this guy? Is this the radical you were talking about? LOOOOOL"
Frazzled wrote:
Why? I'd proffer the only ones paying attention on the D side currently are hardcores, and he's taken the strategic step of focusing on core constituencies, and getting them out. Right now he's trying to drum money and troopers. The "try to get everyone else" will occur later.
Because it will be trotted out to moderates by the winner of the GOP nomination.
It would have been better to get Bill, or even Kerry, to say it.
Easy E wrote:However, Romney may not be the guy who can pull that off, and therefore the Romney cmapaign should avoid such an strategy. Here comes the big BUT. In order to motivate the base, Romney may have try to go far right anyway.
This was McCain's dilemma. He had problems with his base, and thus moved right and picked Palin. But that just undermined his appeal to moderates as an independent thinker, etc. Meanwhile, even with the change, I'm not sure the GOP base really trusted him or was as motivated/enthusiastic as they could have been. It's no wonder that election got away from him they way it did.
Personally, I feel like you have to "go with what brung ya" and let the chips fall where they may. The voting public is mostly stupid, but they do have a way of sniffing out a phony. In my nonpolitical advertising life, I call it the "no BS factor." Gross misrepresentations of reality will almost always come back to bite you in the butt. Shades of truth are a different thing, of course.
If Romney gets the nom, he's got no real choice but to run his campaign in the more traditional manner, trying to appear more fatherly and capable and exuding calm. To do otherwise goes against his longstanding image.
If Ron Paul gets the nom, he's got to light his campaign bus on fire and crank the attitude to 11.
Given those two, the first is the harder one for Obama to deal with.
Santorum is a joke of a 1 turn Senator that lost his first reelection campaign by nearly a 1.5 to 1 margin. If anti Romney spite causes him to win the primaries the general election would just be a repeat of his 2006 reelection.
Easy E wrote:Well, expecting the Repubs to go Far Right could be a rational calculation. After their drubbing to Obama in 2012, the conclusion many Repub pundits made was that they hadn't gone conservative enough, and hence lost.
It's a bad call to make a move this early based on an expected strategy that you haven't confirmed they're even using yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Wait, they just did that actually.
Why? I'd proffer the only ones paying attention on the D side currently are hardcores, and he's taken the strategic step of focusing on core constituencies, and getting them out. Right now he's trying to drum money and troopers. The "try to get everyone else" will occur later.
That's true, but the risk is that this will get picked up by the republicans and bandied about. They can put up romney and wave that post around like, "this guy? Is this the radical you were talking about? LOOOOOL"
Again, I don't see the risk. The MSM is nnot gooing to grill him on it. The right wing already is voting against him. Whats the risk? Its not he hasn't been doing that for some time now.
Easy E wrote:However, Romney may not be the guy who can pull that off, and therefore the Romney cmapaign should avoid such an strategy. Here comes the big BUT. In order to motivate the base, Romney may have try to go far right anyway.
This was McCain's dilemma. He had problems with his base, and thus moved right and picked Palin. But that just undermined his appeal to moderates as an independent thinker, etc. Meanwhile, even with the change, I'm not sure the GOP base really trusted him or was as motivated/enthusiastic as they could have been. It's no wonder that election got away from him they way it did.
Yes, and I think Romney will have the exact same issue. He has never bested 25% among Repubs in polls or in Iowa. That seems like a base issue.
However, the question is if he is going to bother with them or not, and if he can win with only lukewarm base support? Karl Rove would tell you to motivate the Base and feth the rest.
Frazzled wrote:
Again, I don't see the risk. The MSM is nnot gooing to grill him on it. The right wing already is voting against him. Whats the risk? Its not he hasn't been doing that for some time now.
His opponent will bring it up. Why is his actual opponent and their party not part of your list of people who won't say anything?
I'm sorry, Santorum is a joke of a 2 turn Senator that lost his 2nd reelection campaign by nearly a 1.5 to 1 margin. If anti Romney spite causes him to win the primaries the general election would just be a repeat of his 2006 reelection.
Easy E wrote:However, Romney may not be the guy who can pull that off, and therefore the Romney cmapaign should avoid such an strategy. Here comes the big BUT. In order to motivate the base, Romney may have try to go far right anyway.
This was McCain's dilemma. He had problems with his base, and thus moved right and picked Palin. But that just undermined his appeal to moderates as an independent thinker, etc. Meanwhile, even with the change, I'm not sure the GOP base really trusted him or was as motivated/enthusiastic as they could have been. It's no wonder that election got away from him they way it did.
Yes, and I think Romney will have the exact same issue. He has never bested 25% among Repubs in polls or in Iowa. That seems like a base issue.
Which suggests that the GOP's real problem is that it's become too conservative for its own good. Personally, I think this will change. They know the demographic challenges they're facing, and ultimately winning elections trumps ideological purity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
schadenfreude wrote:I'm sorry, Santorum is a joke of a 2 turn Senator that lost his 2nd reelection campaign by nearly a 1.5 to 1 margin. If anti Romney spite causes him to win the primaries the general election would just be a repeat of his 2006 reelection.
Although it has to be said that Casey was a strong opponent in 2006. Maybe not in IQ wattage (LOL), but the Casey name is still big in PA, and the Democratic machines in Philly and Pittsburgh are formidable. Personally I'm not a fan of Casey or his dad, but that's neither here nor there.
I tend to agree he couldn't win. He wouldn't even carry his home state.
Frazzled wrote:
Again, I don't see the risk. The MSM is nnot gooing to grill him on it. The right wing already is voting against him. Whats the risk? Its not he hasn't been doing that for some time now.
His opponent will bring it up. Why is his actual opponent and their party not part of your list of people who won't say anything?
Because they will say it anyway. This is Presidential Politics 101. Candidates campaign on the fringes during party voting, then center in main voting. The other side accuses them of covering their real fringe agenda and saying they are flip/floppers. Been done since like, for ever.
Frazzled wrote:
Again, I don't see the risk. The MSM is nnot gooing to grill him on it. The right wing already is voting against him. Whats the risk? Its not he hasn't been doing that for some time now.
His opponent will bring it up. Why is his actual opponent and their party not part of your list of people who won't say anything?
Because they will say it anyway. This is Presidential Politics 101. Candidates campaign on the fringes during party voting, then center in main voting. The other side accuses them of covering their real fringe agenda and saying they are flip/floppers. Been done since like, for ever.
the corrolary to this is making sure people actually vote. Campainging to your base isn't about make sure they don't vote for the other guy, but that they actually put their ass in a voting booth.
Which is why Romney's nomination is so scary to the GOP: there is fear that the base will just stay home instead of coming out. OTOH, it's not like Obama's base is wild about him either, so this might end up getting decided in the trenches.
And to backtrack a few page, while I'd agree with any assessment of Obama's presidency as "spectacularly mediocre," it's simply dopey to call his actual governence "wacky left wing." He is, admittedly, probably the most liberal president we've had in a while, but this is a guy that spent three years dicking around with DADT (pun delightfully intended), barely got a half baked compromise health care bill passed, and has rolled over on raising taxes for anybody much less the rich.
That doesn't mean he's not left wing Polonius, just incompetent. Many will argue - and I bet this is a future debate point - that he spent the first year on “misplaced priorities.” I can hear it now…
Romney: “Mr. President while millions of people were being laid off you spent an entire year attempting to pass a multi thousand page healthcare people that the American people didn’t want, a cap and tax bill that never made it through your own Senate, and tried to get known terrorists tried in New York City, making the city a magnate for new attacks.”
Obama: “Jane you ignorant slut. We also passed…”(and so it goes)
Frazzled wrote:That doesn't mean he's not left wing Polonius, just incompetent. Many will argue - and I bet this is a future debate point - that he spent the first year on “misplaced priorities.” I can hear it now…
Romney: “Mr. President while millions of people were being laid off you spent an entire year attempting to pass a multi thousand page healthcare people that the American people didn’t want, a cap and tax bill that never made it through your own Senate, and tried to get known terrorists tried in New York City, making the city a magnate for new attacks.”
Obama: “Jane you ignorant slut. We also passed…”(and so it goes)
Everything else in your post-agreed.
Yeah, he's left wing: he's a liberal democrat!
I guess the phrase an earlier poster used was "swung hard to the wacky left," and I guess if you find anything left of McCain "wacky" that's a fair assessement, but as a person with friends in the wacky left, i can assure you that "hey maybe people should be able to buy healthcare" is not on the fringes of liberal thought.
Bush II was a conservative republican, but only a democrat hack is going to call him part of the "wacky right" for the same reasons.
Frazzled wrote:That doesn't mean he's not left wing Polonius, just incompetent.
More likely it means that he's simlpy not as extreme as you want to make him out to be and he's had to try to deal with both an incompetent democratic party and an increasingly obstructionist republican party.
I would vote for Ron Paul just for entertainment value. It doesn't really matter who the president is, after all. The corporate lobbyists run the country.
Frazzled wrote:That doesn't mean he's not left wing Polonius, just incompetent. Many will argue - and I bet this is a future debate point - that he spent the first year on “misplaced priorities.” I can hear it now…
Romney: “Mr. President while millions of people were being laid off you spent an entire year attempting to pass a multi thousand page healthcare people that the American people didn’t want, a cap and tax bill that never made it through your own Senate, and tried to get known terrorists tried in New York City, making the city a magnate for new attacks.”
Obama: “Jane you ignorant slut. We also passed…”(and so it goes)
Everything else in your post-agreed.
Yeah, he's left wing: he's a liberal democrat!
I guess the phrase an earlier poster used was "swung hard to the wacky left," and I guess if you find anything left of McCain "wacky" that's a fair assessement, but as a person with friends in the wacky left, i can assure you that "hey maybe people should be able to buy healthcare" is not on the fringes of liberal thought.
Bush II was a conservative republican, but only a democrat hack is going to call him part of the "wacky right" for the same reasons.
I'm not saying he's wacky lefty fyi. Liberal yes. Incompetent, in spades. Wacky left, no.
His dealings with congress have been pretty wimpy. He's backed down on a bunch of stuff. But the actual responsibilities of the executive branch have been carried out correctly.
Not getting your legislative agenda to happen can make you a mediocre president, but it doesn't make you incompetent. Incompetent means you literally cannot run the day to day white house, which he obviously can.
Rented Tritium wrote:His dealings with congress have been pretty wimpy. He's backed down on a bunch of stuff. But the actual responsibilities of the executive branch have been carried out correctly.
Not getting your legislative agenda to happen can make you a mediocre president, but it doesn't make you incompetent. Incompetent means you literally cannot run the day to day white house, which he obviously can.
Thats your standard for competent? How could you judge a president incompetent on anything then?
Rented Tritium wrote:His dealings with congress have been pretty wimpy. He's backed down on a bunch of stuff. But the actual responsibilities of the executive branch have been carried out correctly.
Not getting your legislative agenda to happen can make you a mediocre president, but it doesn't make you incompetent. Incompetent means you literally cannot run the day to day white house, which he obviously can.
Thats your standard for competent? How could you judge a president incompetent on anything then?
Yeah, see "incompetent" is really strong language for a really serious thing. It's really hard for an incompetent person to make it all the way to the white house. Some of our worst presidents were still smart and capable people who made the wrong decisions.
dogma wrote:He cannot run the Executive on a day-to-day basis?
Define run. He has a Cabinet and administration for that. He's the big picture guy, not operations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:His dealings with congress have been pretty wimpy. He's backed down on a bunch of stuff. But the actual responsibilities of the executive branch have been carried out correctly.
Not getting your legislative agenda to happen can make you a mediocre president, but it doesn't make you incompetent. Incompetent means you literally cannot run the day to day white house, which he obviously can.
Thats your standard for competent? How could you judge a president incompetent on anything then?
Yeah, see "incompetent" is really strong language for a really serious thing. It's really hard for an incompetent person to make it all the way to the white house. Some of our worst presidents were still smart and capable people who made the wrong decisions.
Fair point. I guess "ineffective" would be another word, wlthough I'd stick with incompetent personally.
Frazzled wrote:Thats your standard for competent? How could you judge a president incompetent on anything then?
I'd say if they don't allow a major american city to be destroyed by bad weather, they are competent.
Unless that city is Detroit. In that case, its already happened.
Corrected your typo.
Wai how does a US President keep a city from being destroyed by natural weather? I mean I know Obama can walk on water, but its a little much to say he's responsible for all the deaths caused by last year's tornadoes.
Frazzled wrote:So I can blame him for gunrunner killing federal agents, not to mention several hundred Mexican nationals then?
Only if you don't see any foolishness in blaming Obama for a program that was started in 2005.
You may wish to narrow the scope of your argument.
Also, if Detroit is considered "destroyed", then it's high damn time we let the free market kick in and build Delta City already!
So I can, indeed, now claim Obama is responsuible for the death of US federal agents. After all it was his program. Excellent. (note I am not advocating that, just demonstrating that the concept is stupid).
Frazzled wrote:So I can blame him for gunrunner killing federal agents, not to mention several hundred Mexican nationals then?
Only if you don't see any foolishness in blaming Obama for a program that was started in 2005.
You may wish to narrow the scope of your argument.
Also, if Detroit is considered "destroyed", then it's high damn time we let the free market kick in and build Delta City already!
I met a kid from Detroit in basic that said, "Robocop was an awesome movie, it's a shame Distopian Detroit is nicer than the real thing" never been there but I feel he appealed to my natural hatred for large population centers.
My point was that you may wish to be more specific. Senator Obama did not start the program.
His responsibility is limited to the elements which fell under his purview; specifically, "Operation Fast & The Furious", which was an offshoot of Project Gunrunner.
Ouze wrote:My point was that you may wish to be more specific. Senator Obama did not start the program.
His responsibility is limited to the elements which fell under his purview; specifically, "Operation Fast & The Furious", which was an offshoot of Project Gunrunner.
The killings occurred while he was President. So but this interesting definition of competent, he's responsible.
Yes, the president is responsible for anything that takes orders from the executive branch. This is a pretty simple concept.
The buck stops there.
Now, how much we hold it against him may change depending on the circumstances, but the ultimate responsibility for an executive controlled agency's actions falls to the president, officially.
Other things may make it less bad or less damaging, but he's responsible either way.
Do I consider him whacky. Not really, I think him well to the left, and I don't think most people would really deny that, not even him, after all Liberal is not really a dirty word. I do find a lot of my area Obama supporters to be pretty whacky though.
Now maybe my perception is skewed based upon the fact I live in Oregon, near the larger population centers where the majority of people are pretty well left, and will vote for anyone listed as Democrat, Green, Independent party (yes there is one, I know.. weird), Socialist, or even Communist, and will almost never stray outside of those.
I hear what "average Democrat voters" said on a regular basis about President G. W. Bush, that he was a crazy right wing neo con. They are still going on about it. The same things were regularly said about Romney and McCain in the last presidential election cycle. Ohh the extremists.
They are pretty well Moderate as far as I can tell.
This is sadly how politics tends to get discussed in broad brush strokes, with strong language.
I am one of those whacky non party affiliated voters that they call "independent" and I have voted for Democrats, Socialists, Independent party, Republicans, Libertarians and even for a Corpse, depending on issues, what positions they were applying for, and depending on what the situations of the times warranted.
I personally think that anyone who knows exactly which way they are going to vote a year ahead of election day is not going to be swayed by anything, and probably just a party line voter as the majority seems to be. I find it distasteful, and lazy
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
I personally think that anyone who knows exactly which way they are going to vote a year ahead of election day is not going to be swayed by anything, and probably just a party line voter as the majority seems to be. I find it distasteful, and lazy
If you already know all the candidates involved (or at least all the ones who are anywhere near electable), it's not unreasonable to know whom you prefer well in advance.
Mannahnin wrote:If you already know all the candidates involved (or at least all the ones who are anywhere near electable), it's not unreasonable to know whom you prefer well in advance.
Further, if you know the candidates histories and you are holding off on deciding to see if they say something interesting at a truckstop in new hampshire, that's pretty crazy to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
So I can blame him for gunrunner killing federal agents, not to mention several hundred Mexican nationals then?
Sure, if you want to blame Bush 2 for 9/11.
Its all about reasonability.
Indeed. Thats why the argument is stupid.
Praise and blame go hand in hand. If we can't blame presidents for the actions of their executive agencies which are constitutionally under their control, then we also can't credit them when those agencies do things correctly.
Basically you want to just ignore an entire responsibility of the office of president because it's convenient to this one argument.
His upside is that there's not the slightest chance he could make it through the general election. Not even close. You can win without certain constituencies, but you can't win without the, "I'd prefer it if the president didn't tell me what sort of sex I'm allowed to have," people. Because there's a lot of those.
He's basically this year's Palin. Palin could've waltzed into the Oval Office in the five minutes between the Republican nominating convention and her first interview, and then the majority of the country realized how flying rodent gak she was. Santorum's on the rise now; he'll probably even pick up some primary wins. But it's not going to take the public long to realize he's not only a theocrat, but a big-government theocrat.
So as long as they aren't protestants, or are fallen Catholics in regards to birth control they can be President. How about Muslims? Got a problem with them being President?
So as long as they aren't protestants, or are fallen Catholics in regards to birth control they can be President. How about Muslims? Got a problem with them being President?
I am not really sure how you decided that was my position.
You said santorum's positions are catholic. I said that they weren't. They are in-fact, evangelical protestant positions.
I didn't say anything about who "cannot" be president. Though people with those positions certainly won't get my vote.
It really seems like you've lost the thread of the argument. Go back and re-read please.
Melissia wrote:No, Frazz is still stuck on that other religion thread from a week ago I think.
It comes from trying to be funny and not really saying anything.
I disagree. Sounds like nonsense to stir up the base, lefty this time. But like Republicans everyone's interested in sticking their nose in private affiars for good or bad.
Taking the below at face value as if he actually said these things:
He doesn't believe in the right to privacy.
***That’s problematic. Evidently most of Congress doesn’t either. Fortunately that’s fairly settled by SCOTUS. It’s the Economy Stupid.
He has suggested that laws against adultery, sodomy, and any sex acts he believes don't contribute to a wholesome family should exist.
Good for him. He's so cute when he's pandering. That’s a state issue, although largerly trumped by that evil SCOTUS again (maniacal laugh…maniacal laugh…if you know what that is from you’re a Kermit fan!) It’s the Economy Stupid.
He's a creationist, and believes it should be taught in schools.
***State issue. It’s the Economy Stupid.
He thinks contraceptives should be outlawed.
*** Fortunately that’s fairly settled by SCOTUS. It’s the Economy Stupid.
Evidently you hippy tree huggers have your own bugaboo talking points to distract from real issues.
Rented Tritium wrote:I'm not really sure how someone thinking that the STATE should take away rights rather than the fed makes it any better.
Frazzled, are you under the impression the states are not bound by the constitution?
President is federal government. State issues are like handled at the state. Of course most of the items noted have already been adjudicated on by SCOTUS so its a non issue.
Seaward wrote:His upside is that there's not the slightest chance he could make it through the general election. Not even close. You can win without certain constituencies, but you can't win without the, "I'd prefer it if the president didn't tell me what sort of sex I'm allowed to have," people. Because there's a lot of those.
Damn, really?
I could've sworn that there are all kinds of laws on what kind of sex I'm allowed to have.
Rented Tritium wrote:Someone who campaigns for president on the platform of doing things that are already settled as illegal is maybe not who I want in charge of anything.
Most Presidents do that. Running on "I'll manage the Department of the Interior efficaciously!" just doesn't have the same pizzaz factor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
Seaward wrote:His upside is that there's not the slightest chance he could make it through the general election. Not even close. You can win without certain constituencies, but you can't win without the, "I'd prefer it if the president didn't tell me what sort of sex I'm allowed to have," people. Because there's a lot of those.
Damn, really?
I could've sworn that there are all kinds of laws on what kind of sex I'm allowed to have.
Except in Oregon, of course. And Florida maybe.
Don't forget Arkansas.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Melissia wrote:Except when republicans don't think the states will handle them the way the republicans want them to be handled.
Almost exactly like the Democrats.
Of course, as noted, the ones you seem to have a bugaboo about are already settled law so its pretty irrelevant.
Democrats aren't usually the ones that do "state rights" arguments.
True that. they're usually the ones imposing said law at the federal level.
Melissia wrote:No, Frazz is still stuck on that other religion thread from a week ago I think.
It comes from trying to be funny and not really saying anything.
I disagree. Sounds like nonsense to stir up the base, lefty this time. But like Republicans everyone's interested in sticking their nose in private affiars for good or bad.
Taking the below at face value as if he actually said these things:
He doesn't believe in the right to privacy.
***That’s problematic. Evidently most of Congress doesn’t either. Fortunately that’s fairly settled by SCOTUS. It’s the Economy Stupid.
He has suggested that laws against adultery, sodomy, and any sex acts he believes don't contribute to a wholesome family should exist.
Good for him. He's so cute when he's pandering. That’s a state issue, although largerly trumped by that evil SCOTUS again (maniacal laugh…maniacal laugh…if you know what that is from you’re a Kermit fan!) It’s the Economy Stupid.
He's a creationist, and believes it should be taught in schools.
***State issue. It’s the Economy Stupid.
He thinks contraceptives should be outlawed.
*** Fortunately that’s fairly settled by SCOTUS. It’s the Economy Stupid.
Evidently you hippy tree huggers have your own bugaboo talking points to distract from real issues.
He has actually said those things. Hell, he's said worse than those things.
Whether or not an issue has already been "settled" by the Supreme Court is irrelevant; Republicans campaign on Roe v. Wade all the time, despite it being long-settled law. Something deemed unconstitutional magically becomes constitutional when the Constitution's amended to include it. People advocating for that kind of thing are terrifying, regardless of if they're currently held in check.
As far as "it's the Economy Stupid" goes...I can't tell you how little respect and how much loathing I have for single-issue voters. I'll never understand the short-sighed idiocy that makes voting for a guy who will have wide-ranging influence on a whole host of extremely important issues simply because you like his stance on a grand total of one seem like a good idea.
But, hey. If you want to talk about the economy vis-a-vis Santorum...his economic plan is idiotic, hinged entirely on the absurd notion that manufacturing is going to drive us to a new era of prosperity. In light of all of this, I'm quite satisfied in declaring him to be a time traveler from the late '40s.
Seaward wrote:Something deemed unconstitutional magically becomes constitutional when the Constitution's amended to include it.
I can't decide if you're being critical of that fact, or not, but that is how it generally works.
Seaward wrote:
I'll never understand the short-sighed idiocy that makes voting for a guy who will have wide-ranging influence on a whole host of extremely important issues simply because you like his stance on a grand total of one seem like a good idea.
I mean, if someone campaigned on "Kill Dogma!" I would very likely vote against him no matter what he happened to think about anything else. Its perfectly reasonable to consider one issue more important than all others added together.
Seaward wrote:
But, hey. If you want to talk about the economy vis-a-vis Santorum...his economic plan is idiotic, hinged entirely on the absurd notion that manufacturing is going to drive us to a new era of prosperity. In light of all of this, I'm quite satisfied in declaring him to be a time traveler from the late '40s.
A more effective tactic would likely be to talk about his belief that there is no derived right to privacy.
dogma wrote:I can't decide if you're being critical of that fact, or not, but that is how it generally works.
Critical of the constitutional amendment process? No, not at all. I'm glad it exists. I was being critical of people who doubt True Believers' commitment to getting their extreme social conservatism enshrined into law simply because the Supreme Court has ruled against it in the past.
I mean, if someone campaigned on "Kill Dogma!" I would very likely vote against him no matter what he happened to think about anything else. Its perfectly reasonable to consider one issue more important than all others added together.
That example works only in the abstract. Economic policy. Foreign policy. Social policy. Defense policy. Environmental policy. No one of those is more important than all the others combined.
A more effective tactic would likely be to talk about his belief that there is no derived right to privacy.
People don't seem to understand the significance of that.
Seaward wrote:
That example works only in the abstract. Economic policy. Foreign policy. Social policy. Defense policy. Environmental policy. No one of those is more important than all the others combined.
Maybe not to you, but to someone else its an entirely different case. A gay billionaire probably isn't going to be in favor of gay marriage if he thinks it will cost him 500 million USD. After all, he's a billionaire, he can already essentially do what he wants. That's also an obtuse example, but looking at my day-to-day existence the only significant policy areas are economic, foreign, and defense. And the last two are only relevant in terms of potential employment, which makes economic policy a whole lot more important.
And that's before you consider the context of what Presidential political positions actually mean. Santorum can push for a ban on abortions if he wants, but a large chunk of both chambers will take issue.
Seaward wrote:
People don't seem to understand the significance of that.
Its more that, until the last few days, Santorum had been an irrelevant politician for some time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
If Bachmann or Santorum, or God forbid, Santorum/Bachmann end up on a ticket I'll vote for Obama.
I actually can't imagine a worse political ticket, given the current crop, both in terms of who I want to see in office, and who everyone else wants to see in office.
Seaward wrote:
That example works only in the abstract. Economic policy. Foreign policy. Social policy. Defense policy. Environmental policy. No one of those is more important than all the others combined.
Maybe not to you, but to someone else its an entirely different case. A gay billionaire probably isn't going to be in favor of gay marriage if he thinks it will cost him 500 million USD. After all, he's a billionaire, he can already essentially do what he wants. That's also an obtuse example, but looking at my day-to-day existence the only significant policy areas are economic, foreign, and defense. And the last two are only relevant in terms of potential employment, which makes economic policy a whole lot more important.
And that's before you consider the context of what Presidential political positions actually mean. Santorum can push for a ban on abortions if he wants, but a large chunk of both chambers will take issue.
People are free to vote how they like, but I'm frankly scared of an electorate whose only thought when making decisions for the country is whether or not they they'll make an extra couple grand a year. After all, I can think of at least one truly horrendous individual in world history who made it into power simply by promising and providing economic improvement.
This country managed to pass a constitutional amendment banning the sale of alcohol less than a hundred years ago. I wouldn't put any level of socially conservative stupidity past Congress if the stars align.
Seaward wrote:After all, I can think of at least one truly horrendous individual in world history who made it into power simply by promising and providing economic improvement.
And I can think of more than one guy that did the same by promising social improvement.
And several that ran on the "I'm awesome." ticket.
Seaward wrote:After all, I can think of at least one truly horrendous individual in world history who made it into power simply by promising and providing economic improvement.
And I can think of more than one guy that did the same by promising social improvement.
And several that ran on the "I'm awesome." ticket.
I'm glad we're in agreement it's far more rational to look at a candidate's entire body of belief rather than simply cherry-picking one issue out of dozens and basing your decision on that.
You're bandying about the word "rational" as you please.
Claiming that you really love birth, and that birth being denied is bad, then voting for people that really like birth despite other shortcomings, does not make you irrational.
You don't agree it's better to look at a candidate's entire range of positions, rather than simply finding out where he stands only on one and voting based solely on that?
Interesting. So as long as I promise you a better defense industry job, I can advocate for a pogrom against redheads and the banning of all food that doesn't start with M and still receive your vote?
Frazzled wrote:True that. they're usually the ones imposing said law at the federal level.
Not when the states don't want to impose those laws.
Republicans certainly don't respect California's state rights, for example.
Which state right is that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
alarmingrick wrote:
Melissia wrote:No, Frazz is still stuck on that other religion thread from a week ago I think.
It comes from trying to be funny and not really saying anything.
I disagree. Sounds like nonsense to stir up the base, lefty this time. But like Republicans everyone's interested in sticking their nose in private affiars for good or bad.
Taking the below at face value as if he actually said these things:
He doesn't believe in the right to privacy.
***That’s problematic. Evidently most of Congress doesn’t either. Fortunately that’s fairly settled by SCOTUS. It’s the Economy Stupid.
He has suggested that laws against adultery, sodomy, and any sex acts he believes don't contribute to a wholesome family should exist.
Good for him. He's so cute when he's pandering. That’s a state issue, although largerly trumped by that evil SCOTUS again (maniacal laugh…maniacal laugh…if you know what that is from you’re a Kermit fan!) It’s the Economy Stupid.
He's a creationist, and believes it should be taught in schools.
***State issue. It’s the Economy Stupid.
He thinks contraceptives should be outlawed.
*** Fortunately that’s fairly settled by SCOTUS. It’s the Economy Stupid.
Evidently you hippy tree huggers have your own bugaboo talking points to distract from real issues.
He has actually said those things. Hell, he's said worse than those things.
Whether or not an issue has already been "settled" by the Supreme Court is irrelevant; Republicans campaign on Roe v. Wade all the time, despite it being long-settled law. Something deemed unconstitutional magically becomes constitutional when the Constitution's amended to include it. People advocating for that kind of thing are terrifying, regardless of if they're currently held in check.
As far as "it's the Economy Stupid" goes...I can't tell you how little respect and how much loathing I have for single-issue voters. I'll never understand the short-sighed idiocy that makes voting for a guy who will have wide-ranging influence on a whole host of extremely important issues simply because you like his stance on a grand total of one seem like a good idea.
But, hey. If you want to talk about the economy vis-a-vis Santorum...his economic plan is idiotic, hinged entirely on the absurd notion that manufacturing is going to drive us to a new era of prosperity. In light of all of this, I'm quite satisfied in declaring him to be a time traveler from the late '40s.
Democrats campaign on just the opposite. Its a side show to 1) scare the mouth breathers into voting; or 2) more importantly get those campaign contributions into the old coffers. Its both sad and distracting.
Frazzled wrote:
Democrats campaign on just the opposite. Its a side show to 1) scare the mouth breathers into voting; or 2) more importantly get those campaign contributions into the old coffers. Its both sad and distracting.
You're wrong, I'm afraid. In his losing campaign in 2006, when he knew perfectly well he was going to lose, he let loose with this stuff, and by his campaign's own admission at the time, decided to go out talking about what he believed rather than trying to win a hopeless fight. He's a True Believer, not pandering. Exactly nobody panders to the, "police should have the right to search your house and arrest you if they have reason to believe you've been using contraceptives while having sex with your spouse," crowd.
Frazzled wrote:
Democrats campaign on just the opposite. Its a side show to 1) scare the mouth breathers into voting; or 2) more importantly get those campaign contributions into the old coffers. Its both sad and distracting.
You're wrong, I'm afraid. In his losing campaign in 2006, when he knew perfectly well he was going to lose, he let loose with this stuff, and by his campaign's own admission at the time, decided to go out talking about what he believed rather than trying to win a hopeless fight. He's a True Believer, not pandering. Exactly nobody panders to the, "police should have the right to search your house and arrest you if they have reason to believe you've been using contraceptives while having sex with your spouse," crowd.
I didn't say Democrats weren't true believers too, but you see this all the time. Vote for X or because the other party eats babies and will try to eat yours! blah blah. Meanwhile the city is burning. Where's my lyre?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote:
dogma wrote:We're not in agreement at all.
We're not?
You don't agree it's better to look at a candidate's entire range of positions, rather than simply finding out where he stands only on one and voting based solely on that?
Interesting. So as long as I promise you a better defense industry job, I can advocate for a pogrom against redheads and the banning of all food that doesn't start with M and still receive your vote?
Both are good. Some people vote on single or few issues, some are full penumbra of rights type guys.
Rented Tritium wrote:Bachmann, Perry and Cain all got into the race because God told them to.
God is high fiving someone over this hilarious joke right now.
The anti God crowd is strong this morning.
Total BS, but even if we assumed that:
Is it better to run because God told you too, or run because your ego is so incredibly over developed you think you are capable, indeed the best choice, to run the the most powerful country in the free world?
Rented Tritium wrote:Bachmann, Perry and Cain all got into the race because God told them to.
God is high fiving someone over this hilarious joke right now.
The anti God crowd is strong this morning.
Total BS, but even if we assumed that:
Is it better to run because God told you too, or run because your ego is so incredibly over developed you think you are capable, indeed the best choice, to run the the most powerful country in the free world?
It's an irrelevant question considering I don't believe God actually exists.
So what you are really asking is, is it better to hear voices or be cocky? Going with cocky.
Automatically Appended Next Post: What if Zeus tells me to run, frazzled? Are you going to take me seriously?
Frazzled wrote:True that. they're usually the ones imposing said law at the federal level.
Not when the states don't want to impose those laws.
Republicans certainly don't respect California's state rights, for example.
/source.
She's referring to states not recognizing each other's gay marriages.
Or before that, not recognizing each other's interracial marriages.
Don't be daft. Thats flipping it. Under the Constitution if one state goes rogue and makes marrying billy goats legal, all the other states have to recognize that.
Seaward wrote:That example works only in the abstract. Economic policy. Foreign policy. Social policy. Defense policy. Environmental policy. No one of those is more important than all the others combined.
I would give an example to the contrary-- for homosexuals, gay rights often ARE more important. It's not just a single issue but a whole swath of issues, but still.
The economy can fix itself if the government stops screwing around and adding in uncertainty (both parties being guilty of this), our foreign policy doesn't really change much over administrations anwyay (usually it only changes over decades or major events), defense will always be looked after, and environmental policy doesn't always have a direct effect on their lives.
But social policy does.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:/source.
Gay marriage and legalization of marijuana come to mind.
Frazzled wrote:
Is it better to run because God told you too, or run because your ego is so incredibly over developed you think you are capable, indeed the best choice, to run the the most powerful country in the free world?
Rented Tritium wrote:Bachmann, Perry and Cain all got into the race because God told them to.
God is high fiving someone over this hilarious joke right now.
The anti God crowd is strong this morning.
Total BS, but even if we assumed that:
Is it better to run because God told you too, or run because your ego is so incredibly over developed you think you are capable, indeed the best choice, to run the the most powerful country in the free world?
You're asking if I'd prefer a narcissist or a lunatic.
Narcissist, any day of the week. Twice on Sundays.
Rented Tritium wrote:Bachmann, Perry and Cain all got into the race because God told them to.
God is high fiving someone over this hilarious joke right now.
The anti God crowd is strong this morning.
Total BS, but even if we assumed that:
Is it better to run because God told you too, or run because your ego is so incredibly over developed you think you are capable, indeed the best choice, to run the the most powerful country in the free world?
You're asking if I'd prefer a narcissist or a lunatic.
Narcissist, any day of the week. Twice on Sundays.
Rented Tritium wrote:Bachmann, Perry and Cain all got into the race because God told them to.
God is high fiving someone over this hilarious joke right now.
The anti God crowd is strong this morning.
Total BS, but even if we assumed that:
Is it better to run because God told you too, or run because your ego is so incredibly over developed you think you are capable, indeed the best choice, to run the the most powerful country in the free world?
You're asking if I'd prefer a narcissist or a lunatic.
Narcissist, any day of the week. Twice on Sundays.
Actually its a lunatic or a lunatic.
I dont actually understand a thing that sea said there.
You can believe in God without being a narcissist, and you can believe you are intelligent enough to be president without being a lunatic.
So you're saying individuals who run for president should actively believe they aren't the best choice for the job? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
I don't particularly want a president who doesn't believe he can do the job. For that matter, I don't particularly want a janitor who doesn't think he can do the job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:
I dont actually understand a thing that sea said there.
You can believe in God without being a narcissist, and you can believe you are intelligent enough to be president without being a lunatic.
Or vice versa.
I didn't keep the options in their respective order.
Believing God told you to run for president - lunatic.
Believing you're the best choice to run the country - narcissist.
Frazzled wrote:I think anyone who thinks they are the best choice to head the United States government is indeed runing with the proverbial Napoleon Complex thanks.
Since no proff whatsoever has been put up that Santorum believes God told him to run, then your point is not only irrelevant, its not appropriate.
You were the one who asked the question, not me.
And, for what it's worth, Santorum has repeatedly said he believes US civil codes should be brought into accordance with Biblical law. It's a little more relevant than you'd care to admit, I think.
Seaward wrote:You were the one who asked the question, not me.
Actually now. There were multiple statements made that he somehow was told by God to run for the Presidency. Evidently being evangelical means you're free game to attack without any support whatsoever.
And, for what it's worth, Santorum has repeatedly said he believes US civil codes should be brought into accordance with Biblical law. It's a little more relevant than you'd care to admit, I think.
He may have (I don't know) . And some people will look at that. Others will click the "not Obama" button for "is Obama" button.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Melissia wrote: legalization of marijuana come to mind.
I didn't know Holder was a Republican. Thats news.
And bedonkidonk.
But you still have yet to produce a source.
Believing God told you to run for president - lunatic.
Believing you're the best choice to run the country - narcissist.
This was a joke though right? I mean, I said Vice versa.. Its wrong whichever way you slice it!
It wasn't, no. Hearing voices that tell you to do things is - and I don't have my DSM handy, so I'm going from memory - a sign of pretty severe mental illness.
Believing God told you to run for president - lunatic.
Believing you're the best choice to run the country - narcissist.
This was a joke though right? I mean, I said Vice versa.. Its wrong whichever way you slice it!
It wasn't, no. Hearing voices that tell you to do things is - and I don't have my DSM handy, so I'm going from memory - a sign of pretty severe mental illness.
Literally believing yourself to be Napoleon? Sure.
Good news though, guys; it turns out this whole topic is moot. Pat Robertson had a chat with God, and God told him who wins the election. The catch is, he's not allowed to tell us.
Seaward wrote:You were the one who asked the question, not me.
Actually now. There were multiple statements made that he somehow was told by God to run for the Presidency. Evidently being evangelical means you're free game to attack without any support whatsoever.
Go back and read. Bachmann, Cain and Perry said god told them to run. Nobody ever said that santorum made that claim.
Bachmann Cain and perry really did, btw, loudly and in front of a lot of people say that god had literally told them to run for president.
Seaward wrote:You were the one who asked the question, not me.
Actually now. There were multiple statements made that he somehow was told by God to run for the Presidency. Evidently being evangelical means you're free game to attack without any support whatsoever.
Go back and read. Bachmann, Cain and Perry said god told them to run. Nobody ever said that santorum made that claim.
Bachmann Cain and perry really did, btw, loudly and in front of a lot of people say that god had literally told them to run for president.
Seaward wrote:
It wasn't, no. Hearing voices that tell you to do things is - and I don't have my DSM handy, so I'm going from memory - a sign of pretty severe mental illness.
Yes, but you simply said "believing in God" not "actually think you have full blown conversations with a magical man in the sky" or id fething agree with you!
The overwhelming majority of people that believe in God aren't mentally ill, and I know a few devout Catholics, none of whom say they have conversations with their maker.
mattyrm wrote: Yes, but you simply said "believing in God" not "actually think you have full blown conversations with a magical man in the sky" or id fething agree with you!
2 issues with Santorum. Energize the base, and Moderates/Independents
Energize the base: An energized base is a very valuable political asset in the general election. In the primaries an overcharged base will often result in disaster choosing an unelectable candidate. Right now the Republican base is overcharged, and the Democratic base is no longer energized. Picking a very far right candidate that scares the piss out of liberals like Santorum will energize the Democratic base, and thus negate the energized Republican base. Romney on the other hand is boring, and won't energize the Democratic base like Santorum will. The problem with Romney is the GOP base is so over charged if he win a 3rd party conservative candidate might pop up, and that will hand the election over to Obama. The choice between Santorum and Romney comes down to being completely certain to energize the Democratic base back up to where it was in 2008 when Obama won, or risk being destroyed by your own base as it throws up a 3rd party conservative candidate that splits the conservative base.
Moderates/Independents: I don't see Santorum winning many votes from these people, and they matter a lot in swing states. 527's are going to eat this guy alive over some of the comments he has made over the years. The 2 big ones are the Catholic sex abuse scandals, and Griswold versus Connecticut.
Priests raping children= "Basic homosexual act" There is a whole lot of 527 ammo when dealing with to Santorum and the Catholic sex abuse scandals.
The right to privacy="doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution" Where that one gets sticky is it doesn't just apply to homosexuals. He things states should have the right to ban birth control. He wants to overturn Griswold versus Connecticut, and thus allow states to ban birth control. The right to privacy of a man + a woman in their own bedroom "doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution" Yes he believes the government has the right to take away your condoms.
Seaward wrote:
It wasn't, no. Hearing voices that tell you to do things is - and I don't have my DSM handy, so I'm going from memory - a sign of pretty severe mental illness.
Yes, but you simply said "believing in God" not "actually think you have full blown conversations with a magical man in the sky" or id fething agree with you!
The overwhelming majority of people that believe in God aren't mentally ill, and I know a few devout Catholics, none of whom say they have conversations with their maker.
No. This is the exact post I responded to:
Frazzled wrote:Is it better to run because God told you too, or run because your ego is so incredibly over developed you think you are capable, indeed the best choice, to run the the most powerful country in the free world?
My response was, to paraphrase, "You're asking me to choose between a lunatic and a narcissist, and I'll take the narcissist."
schadenfreude wrote:The right to privacy="doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution" Where that one gets sticky is it doesn't just apply to homosexuals. He things states should have the right to ban birth control. He wants to overturn Griswold versus Connecticut, and thus allow states to ban birth control. The right to privacy of a man + a woman in their own bedroom "doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution" Yes he believes the government has the right to take away your condoms.
I think he's right. There is no "right to privacy" in the US Constitution.
The "right to privacy" can only be found in the emanations from the penumbra of the Bill of Rights (or maybe it's penumbras from the emanations?). That's slang for "It's not there but dangit it should be."
Seaward wrote:
It wasn't, no. Hearing voices that tell you to do things is - and I don't have my DSM handy, so I'm going from memory - a sign of pretty severe mental illness.
Yes, but you simply said "believing in God" not "actually think you have full blown conversations with a magical man in the sky" or id fething agree with you!
The overwhelming majority of people that believe in God aren't mentally ill, and I know a few devout Catholics, none of whom say they have conversations with their maker.
No. This is the exact post I responded to:
Frazzled wrote:Is it better to run because God told you too, or run because your ego is so incredibly over developed you think you are capable, indeed the best choice, to run the the most powerful country in the free world?
My response was, to paraphrase, "You're asking me to choose between a lunatic and a narcissist, and I'll take the narcissist."
Oh alright, Ill just be over here shutting the feth up then.
schadenfreude wrote:The right to privacy="doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution" Where that one gets sticky is it doesn't just apply to homosexuals. He things states should have the right to ban birth control. He wants to overturn Griswold versus Connecticut, and thus allow states to ban birth control. The right to privacy of a man + a woman in their own bedroom "doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution" Yes he believes the government has the right to take away your condoms.
I think he's right. There is no "right to privacy" in the US Constitution.
The "right to privacy" can only be found in the emanations from the penumbra of the Bill of Rights (or maybe it's penumbras from the emanations?). That's slang for "It's not there but dangit it should be."
Does the 4th amendment guarantee a right to privacy? The answer is an endless circle jerk of debate on constitutional law, so let's not go there and just agree to disagree.
Let's go somewhere else instead. We all know a pro life Republican can win elections. What hasn't been tried in a very long time is a candidate that is not only pro life, but actually says he wants to give states the right to ban birth control. Do you really think a candidate that wants to outlaw birth control can actually win enough female votes in a key swing states to win a general election? If the answer is no they a Santorum win in the primaries is an Obama win in the general.
schadenfreude wrote:Does the 4th amendment guarantee a right to privacy? The answer is an endless circle jerk of debate on constitutional law, so let's not go there and just agree to disagree.
Nope.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You might be able to argue that there is one according to the 9th or 14th Amendments, but you're not going to find a privacy right in the 4th.
schadenfreude wrote:Let's go somewhere else instead. We all know a pro life Republican can win elections. What hasn't been tried in a very long time is a candidate that is not only pro life, but actually says he wants to give states the right to ban birth control. Do you really think a candidate that wants to outlaw birth control can actually win enough female votes in a key swing states to win a general election? If the answer is no they a Santorum win in the primaries is an Obama win in the general.
I'm not convinced Santorum wants to outlaw birth control. The only link you've provided is an argument that states should have the ability to ban birth control. It's a big difference.
You obviously think that the government couldn't prohibit the purchase of birth control. Could the government mandate the purchase of birth control?
I heard a fantastic quote this morning on GMA. not exact but something to the tune of:
I don't get why Santorum is so opposed to gay marriage. Married people become Republicans so I want as man people to be married as possible.
Clearly there are some issues wit his analysis, but it's a good argument FROM a Republican TO a Republican supporting an unpopular stance the Pachyderms should probably abandon.
biccat wrote:I'm not convinced Santorum wants to outlaw birth control. The only link you've provided is an argument that states should have the ability to ban birth control. It's a big difference.
You obviously think that the government couldn't prohibit the purchase of birth control. Could the government mandate the purchase of birth control?
Rick Santorum wrote:One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country...Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.
Rick Santorum wrote:One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country...Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.
Here's the thing...just because someone thinks X is bad doesn't mean that they want to ban X. Well, for Republicans at least.
I'm not saying it's outside the realm of possibility - Santorum is basically a religious liberal when it comes to government expansion - but you haven't shown what the article purports, namely that Santorum is "coming for your birth control."
Rick Santorum wrote:One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country...Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.
Here's the thing...just because someone thinks X is bad doesn't mean that they want to ban X. Well, for Republicans at least.
I'm not saying it's outside the realm of possibility - Santorum is basically a religious liberal when it comes to government expansion - but you haven't shown what the article purports, namely that Santorum is "coming for your birth control."
Indeed. I am personally against abortion. However, as government policy I'm 100% current policy. Further, I would like to submit a list of names for retroactive abortions...
Seaward wrote:You were the one who asked the question, not me.
Actually now. There were multiple statements made that he somehow was told by God to run for the Presidency. Evidently being evangelical means you're free game to attack without any support whatsoever.
Go back and read. Bachmann, Cain and Perry said god told them to run. Nobody ever said that santorum made that claim.
Bachmann Cain and perry really did, btw, loudly and in front of a lot of people say that god had literally told them to run for president.
Seaward wrote:
Interesting. So as long as I promise you a better defense industry job, I can advocate for a pogrom against redheads and the banning of all food that doesn't start with M and still receive your vote?
It depends on how good the defense industry job is.
You pay enough, I'm willing to put up with a lot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
You might be able to argue that there is one according to the 9th or 14th Amendments, but you're not going to find a privacy right in the 4th.
Many people have argued that the prohibition on unwarranted search and seizure is a cornerstone of the right to privacy.
Rick Santorum wrote:One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country...Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.
Here's the thing...just because someone thinks X is bad doesn't mean that they want to ban X. Well, for Republicans at least.
I'm not saying it's outside the realm of possibility - Santorum is basically a religious liberal when it comes to government expansion - but you haven't shown what the article purports, namely that Santorum is "coming for your birth control."
There's only two things here: either he thinks contraception is a danger to the country and intends to do something about it, or else he thinks contraception is a danger to the country but doesn't want to do anything about it. Your position is that Santorum is saying, "This is a threat to our society that, as president, I intend to do absolutely nothing about." That doesn't make a lot of sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
It depends on how good the defense industry job is.
You pay enough, I'm willing to put up with a lot.
That's your argument against my assertion that single-issue voters are self-interested, short-sighted individuals who don't make the best decisions for the country?
Seaward wrote: Your position is that Santorum is saying, "This is a threat to our society that, as president, I intend to do absolutely nothing about." That doesn't make a lot of sense.
Well, he's kind of silly that way. He didn't say black people shouldn't get welfare, after he was caught on video saying black people shouldn't get welfare.
What a zany kinda guy....
Seaward wrote:That's your argument against my assertion that single-issue voters are self-interested, short-sighted individuals who don't make the best decisions for the country?
One can be a self-interested, short-sighted individual who don't make the best decisions for the country while not being a single issue voter as well. It isn't like the fact that someone isn't an activist for a single issue they are passionate about makes them magically have wisdom or insight, it just means they don't have strong feelings about a specific issue. His argument though, by the way, and one he gave numerous examples of, is that being a single issue voter isn't necessarily disastrous to the process or mean that a person is stupid. You seem to confuse you disliking something with: 1) having an understanding of it and how it plays a role and 2)meaning that it must automatically make it bad.
schadenfreude wrote:
Does the 4th amendment guarantee a right to privacy?
No, but it does limit the circumstances under which the state can intrude on any given person's privacy. In essence, it outlines those circumstances under which you do have a right to privacy, but does not guarantee a general right to privacy. He's also probably right that types of privacy protected by the Constitution don't prohibit states from banning the sale or use of contraceptives (though the ban on use would be difficult to enforce).
Still, his description contraceptives as things which allow people to do sexual things that are not in consistence with the way things are "supposed to be" is laughably stupid.
Seaward wrote:That's your argument against my assertion that single-issue voters are self-interested, short-sighted individuals who don't make the best decisions for the country?
One can be a self-interested, short-sighted individual who don't make the best decisions for the country while not being a single issue voter as well. It isn't like the fact that someone isn't an activist for a single issue they are passionate about makes them magically have wisdom or insight, it just means they don't have strong feelings about a specific issue. His argument though, by the way, and one he gave numerous examples of, is that being a single issue voter isn't necessarily disastrous to the process or mean that a person is stupid. You seem to confuse you disliking something with: 1) having an understanding of it and how it plays a role and 2)meaning that it must automatically make it bad.
No, I'm afraid not. He gave a lot of examples of issues he doesn't care about, but that doesn't make them unimportant. Picking a candidate exclusively due to his stance on one single issue - caring only about one single issue amongst the wide range of extremely important issues that any government faces - is foolish. Especially as the single issue the single issue voter cares about tends to change from election cycle to election cycle.
Seaward wrote:
That's your argument against my assertion that single-issue voters are self-interested, short-sighted individuals who don't make the best decisions for the country?
No, my argument is that being a single issue voter doesn't mean being short-sighted, or even self-interested (in the conventional sense).
I can vote favorably on a single issue that is critical to the well being of the nation, but very detrimental to myself. Maybe I'm a horrible monster that kills kittens, and all the kittens in the US will soon be dead if nothing is done. If someone runs on a "Kill Dogma!" platform, and I vote for him, I'm making a single-issue choice based on the well being of the nation.
If you want a more realistic example, economic issues are just about the single most important thing in any given political campaign because they necessarily affect everyone. Being a single issue economics voter isn't really that bad, unless the guy you're supporting also wants to, say, exterminate 30% of the population, or legalize rape, or something else awful.
Sometimes 1 issue really is more important than everything else combined, especially when you're looking at a democratic system in which no one man has his finger on the button, so to speak.
Seaward wrote: He gave a lot of examples of issues he doesn't care about, but that doesn't make them unimportant.
It makes them unimportant to me when I'm casting my vote. I'm not instantly a moron because I have decided that a number of issues aren't really issues at all.
For example, the whole intelligent design thing. Its not an issue to me because I have absolutely no faith in the ability of any politician to pass a law requiring its teaching, and don't think it would be disastrous if such a law were passed. I would be saddened a bit, as I think ID is nonsense that should be consigned to the dust bin of history on both logical and scientific grounds, but I really wouldn't care.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote:Especially as the single issue the single issue voter cares about tends to change from election cycle to election cycle.
dogma wrote:
If you want a more realistic example, economic issues are just about the single most important thing in any given political campaign because they necessarily affect everyone. Being a single issue economics voter isn't really that bad, unless the guy you're supporting also wants to, say, exterminate 30% of the population, or legalize rape, or something else awful.
Of course it is. People with extreme agendas haven't gotten into office because they convinced everyone of their extreme agenda, they've gotten in because people liked, for example, their economic policy, and said, "Oh, well, he can't be serious about/won't get a chance to enact all that crazy stuff." Sometimes that's true, sometimes that's not.
Sometimes 1 issue really is more important than everything else combined, especially when you're looking at a democratic system in which no one man has his finger on the button, so to speak.
Again, no. Unless you choose to define pretty much every other issue as some aspect of economic policy, the economy is simply not more important than everything else a president can impact.
It makes them unimportant to me when I'm casting my vote. I'm not instantly a moron because I have decided that a number of issues aren't really issues at all.
For example, the whole intelligent design thing. Its not an issue to me because I have absolutely no faith in the ability of any politician to pass a law requiring its teaching, and don't think it would be disastrous if such a law were passed. I would be saddened a bit, as I think ID is nonsense that should be consigned to the dust bin of history on both logical and scientific grounds, but I really wouldn't care.
What worries me is that attitude right there, because there have been laws passed to mandate its teaching. They haven't been on a national level, and fortunately those evil activist judges that conservatives enjoy ranting about have overturned them, but that fight's far from over.
I don't see why that's relevant at all.
It's relevant because it undermines your point about one issue being more important than all others combined. If the single, shining issue that takes priority over all others EVAR can change every four years, maybe, just maybe, that suggests that there really are a lot of important issues out there. If you had told me in 2004 that the president who oversaw the mission that killed bin Laden would face a tough reelection battle one year later, I'd have called you insane, as had Bush pulled that off in '04, he would've been elected king for life. Similarly, terrorism wasn't even an issue in '00.
Single-issue voting, you see, predicts the future. It says, "I need to know nothing more about this candidate than his stance on X, because that's always going to be the most important aspect of his presidency." And that statement is usually wrong.
I'm honestly a little shocked that you're so open about not caring a whit if a candidate's a gibbering loon so long as he panders to your particular issue. Any given issue can be dominant in an election cycle, but to pretend that all the others don't matter is, frankly, absurd.
Seaward wrote:
Of course it is. People with extreme agendas haven't gotten into office because they convinced everyone of their extreme agenda, they've gotten in because people liked, for example, their economic policy, and said, "Oh, well, he can't be serious about/won't get a chance to enact all that crazy stuff." Sometimes that's true, sometimes that's not.
Sure, that's the risk of representative democracy. The other risk is that the candidate can be telling you things that aren't at all reflective of his real intentions.
Lying in public is pretty easy.
Seaward wrote:
Again, no. Unless you choose to define pretty much every other issue as some aspect of economic policy, the economy is simply not more important than everything else a president can impact.
Given the current field of candidates and their positions, and current economic conditions, yeah, it pretty much is. Not to me (I'll be fine no matter what.), but if we're looking at the whole electorate, definitely.
Seaward wrote:
What worries me is that attitude right there, because there have been laws passed to mandate its teaching.
I only think if its bad if said mandate precludes the teaching of more reasonable positions, which, as far as I know, is not the case.
Seaward wrote:
It's relevant because it undermines your point about one issue being more important than all others combined. If the single, shining issue that takes priority over all others EVAR can change every four years, maybe, just maybe, that suggests that there really are a lot of important issues out there.
I didn't say anything about "EVAR". One issue can be of critical importance at one time, and be completely unimportant at another.
When I asked if anybody thought Santorum would win with his extreme position on social issues I was not expecting the classic right wing debate tactic of denial. Saying Santorum doesn't want to outlaw birth control is like saying Ron Paul doesn't want to switch the country back to the gold standard. Wow, I was caught off guard by some crazy use of denial by Santorum supporters. If you are going to support a cook don't deny aspects of his political platform.
Which was obviously a fairly astute career move. Figure he rose from being the junior Senator from 
