(CBS News) Rick Santorum suspended his bid for the presidency on Tuesday, removing the last significant obstacle in Mitt Romney's now all-but-certain march to the Republican presidential nomination.
"We made a decision over the weekend that while this presidential race for us is over for me, and we will suspend our campaign effective today, we are not done fighting," Santorum said at a press conference in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania Tuesday afternoon.
Santorum did not endorse Romney in making his announcement Tuesday, though he did vow to fight to defeat President Obama and help Republicans win the Senate in the fall.
In a statement, Romney called Santorum "an able and worthy competitor" and congratulated his often-bitter rival for his campaign.
"He has proven himself to be an important voice in our party and in the nation," said Romney. "We both recognize that what is most important is putting the failures of the last three years behind us and setting America back on the path to prosperity."
John Brabender, a senior Santorum strategist, said Santorum has spoken to Romney about leaving the race and that Romney has requested a meeting in the "near future."
Santorum's campaign had insisted earlier in the day that the former Pennsylvania senator was not leaving the race despite a last-minute decision to cancel his Tuesday morning campaign events. Early Tuesday morning, the campaign announced that Santorum's three-year-old daughter Bella, who suffers from a genetic condition called Trisomy 18, had been released from the hospital after falling ill over the weekend. The campaign said that the morning events had been cancelled so Santorum could help his family "settle in at home."
Santorum said Tuesday afternoon that Bella had recovered after a "difficult weekend," but that the situation "did cause us to think in the role that we have as parents in her life." He said that "this was a time for prayer and thought over this past weekend," and that the decision to suspend the campaign had been made during that period.
On his Facebook page just hours before the announcement, Santorum had posted a message that he was "back on the campaign trail" in his home state. He had been set to participate in a "Faith, Family, and American Values forum" at Lancaster Bible College Tuesday evening.
Santorum Press Secretary Alice Stewart says Santorum held an all-call conference call with his staff at 1:45pm today to alert them to his decision.
An unapologetic social and fiscal conservative, Santorum spent much of the 2012 campaign cycle as an also-ran, toiling in relative obscurity while a succession of contenders - Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich among them - rose to the top of the Republican presidential polls before falling back to earth.
He finally began gaining traction in Iowa shortly before the January 3 caucuses, when social conservatives eager for a candidate to call their own started to coalesce around him. Santorum effectively tied Romney in Iowa before going on to win another ten states and claim the mantle of conservative alternative to the frontrunner.
Yet Romney was able to leverage his organizational and financial advantage over Santorum to build up a delegate lead and keep his rival from victories in states like Ohio and Michigan that would have signaled that Santorum held appeal outside the conservative base. And Santorum was never able to shake the perception that he could not beat President Obama in the fall, with GOP primary voters overwhelmingly citing Romney as the most electable candidate in exit poll after exit poll.
Romney: Rivals don't stand much of a chance
Santorum's better-than-anyone-expected finish amounts to a political resurrection for the two-term senator following his crushing loss in his bid for a third term in 2006, and sets him up as a major figure in the Republican Party representing its sizable social conservative wing. It also reflects lingering distrust of Romney on the part of the GOP's most conservative voters, who have pointed to Romney's relatively-moderate record as Massachusetts governor to suggest Romney does not truly represent them.
"This race was as improbable as any race as you will ever see for president," Santorum said Tuesday, describing his run as a "miracle" that reflected the hopes and dreams of his supporters. He also called on his audience to remember "the values that make us Americans."
"We are going to continue to fight for those voices and we are going to continue to fight for the Americans who stood up and gave us that air under our wings that allowed us to accomplish things that no political expert would have ever expected," he added.
There had been widespread speculation that Santorum would leave the race before Pennsylvania's April 24 primary in order to avoid a possible loss in his home state, which he had deemed must-win. Recent polls in the Keystone state have shown a tight race between Santorum and Romney, with Romney having significantly narrowed what in early March was a double-digit Santorum lead.
Santorum's departure from the race leaves Romney with just two remaining challengers: Gingrich, who has won just two contests thus far, and Ron Paul, who has won none. Gingrich acknowledged that Romney "far and away the most likely" nominee over the weekend in an interview in which he seemed to be reflecting on a failed campaign, while Paul has largely gone quiet on the campaign trail.
Gingrich said in a statement following the announcement that he is "committed to staying in this race all the way to Tampa so that the conservative movement has a real choice." Appearing on Mike Huckabee's radio show, he said he now had the one-on-one fight he had long sought against Romney and challenged Romney to a series of one-on-one debates.
Paul, meanwhile, released a statement saying he "is now the last - and real - conservative alternative to Mitt Romney."
"We plan to continue running hard, secure delegates, and press the fight for limited, constitutional government in Tampa," he said.
CBS News estimates show Romney with 645 of the 1,144 delegates he needs to win the GOP nomination before the nominating convention in Tampa in late August. Santorum is in second with 252 delegates, followed by Gingrich with 128 delegates and Paul with 45 delegates. Santorum's decision to leave the race significantly improves Romney's odds of reaching 1,144 delegates by the time voting wraps up in June, thus avoiding a contested convention. Santorum and Gingrich have said that their last, best hope for the nomination was in keeping Romney below that threshold and then triumphing at the convention. Even before Santorum's announcement, Romney had expected to expand his delegate lead in the four other states holding primaries on April 24 - Connecticut, New York, Delaware, and Rhode Island.
Santorum's decision to "suspend" his campaign, rather than formally end it, allows him to continue raising money to cover potential campaign debt and to keep his delegates. Under Republican National Committee rules, many of Santorum's bound delegates will remain with the candidate unless they are formally released by the campaign.
"I walked out after the Iowa caucus victory and said game on," Santorum said Tuesday. "I know a lot of folks are going to write, maybe those even at the White House, game over. But this game is a long long long way from over. We are going to continue to go out there and fight to make sure that we defeat President Barack Obama."
On one hand, I'm glad to know he won't possibly be president next year.
On the other hand, I kinda wanted him to get the nomination, so he would be crushed in the general election and would never be a threat to gain the nomination ever again.
Grakmar wrote:I don't know if this is good news or not.
On one hand, I'm glad to know he won't possibly be president next year.
On the other hand, I kinda wanted him to get the nomination, so he would be crushed in the general election and would never be a threat to gain the nomination ever again.
Now, we just need to worry about 2016.
I think we got enough gak on him this year to keep him from politics forever.
Well, I always said Romney would never get the nomination. Guess I underestimated that he might actually be the closest thing to a decent candidate available XD
With Santorum out of the race, who will conservatives look to supply their bat s**t? Can they trust Romney to properly shame women for having lady parts? You win this round condom manufacturers..
LordofHats wrote:Well, I always said Romney would never get the nomination. Guess I underestimated that he might actually be the closest thing to a decent candidate available XD
I agree at this point. Romney is the best candidate to run against Obama. I think the Republican base will hate Obama more than they dislike Romney, and Romney is close enough to the center and likable enough to steal moderate votes. He's the best shot there is.
LordofHats wrote:I agree at this point. Romney is the best candidate to run against Obama. I think the Republican base will hate Obama more than they dislike Romney, and Romney is close enough to the center and likable enough to steal moderate votes. He's the best shot there is.
Frankly I don't think he's much differently politically. He's just a better manager. We need that. We've had a few decades of amateurs running things.
Chowderhead wrote:I think we got enough gak on him this year to keep him from politics forever.
No, that's hardly the lesson to draw from the primaries. If anything, it's pretty impressive how long Santorum lasted. Yes, he is completely out of touch with many Americans. But those same Americans greatly underestimated how many of our countrymen find him compelling -- and apparently much more compelling than Mitt Romney. Romney is all milquetoast and needs some fire on his ticket so I'm not surprised that Santorum has only suspended his campaign rather than resigning.
Chowderhead wrote:I think we got enough gak on him this year to keep him from politics forever.
No, that's hardly the lesson to draw from the primaries. If anything, it's pretty impressive how long Santorum lasted. Yes, he is completely out of touch with many Americans. But those same Americans greatly underestimated how many of our countrymen find him compelling -- and apparently much more compelling than Mitt Romney. Romney is all milquetoast and needs some fire on his ticket so I'm not surprised that Santorum has only suspended his campaign rather than resigning.
It's suspended only until he pays off his debt, than he's history.
I think this highlights how someone with a lot of cash can overcome personal shortcomings.
Frazzled wrote:
Frankly I don't think he's much differently politically. He's just a better manager. We need that. We've had a few decades of amateurs running things.
Bush II was also a managerial President. So was Reagan. There is no solid predictor for who will be effective in the office.
LordofHats wrote:I agree at this point. Romney is the best candidate to run against Obama. I think the Republican base will hate Obama more than they dislike Romney, and Romney is close enough to the center and likable enough to steal moderate votes. He's the best shot there is.
Frankly I don't think he's much differently politically. He's just a better manager. We need that. We've had a few decades of amateurs running things.
No he's not. Romney is a TERRIBLE manager. He's basically just Paul Sorvino from Goodfellas: he'll take over a company, sell its assets off in a fire sale, pocket the cash and leave the company hanging in the wind, often costing everyone their jobs in the process for his own personal gain. In fact, he even built and entire company to do just that on a large-scale basis.
That is the LAST person that you want running your country.
Also: Can you guys answer a question for me? Why is so much of the country opposed to universal health care? I honestly just don't understand that sentiment. I can't imagine it's all just propaganda and misinformation, nor can I internally understand why people would not want it.
azazel the cat wrote:
Also: Can you guys answer a question for me? Why is so much of the country opposed to universal health care? I honestly just don't understand that sentiment. I can't imagine it's all just propaganda and misinformation, nor can I internally understand why people would not want it.
Reflexive distaste for government, and the general belief that the private sector is universally superior to the state.
If Obama wins reelection, the Republican candidate in 2016 is going to make Santorum look moderate. There's been a lot of screaming among the GOP base for the past four years about how a "true conservative" would easily sweep all 50 states, and the reason that they keep losing the general is that they keep nominating these gosh-darn centrist RINOs.
Frazzled wrote:
Frankly I don't think he's much differently politically. He's just a better manager. We need that. We've had a few decades of amateurs running things.
Bush II was also a managerial President. So was Reagan. There is no solid predictor for who will be effective in the office.
Bush II couldn't manage his ass. He was a lightweight.
LordofHats wrote:I agree at this point. Romney is the best candidate to run against Obama. I think the Republican base will hate Obama more than they dislike Romney, and Romney is close enough to the center and likable enough to steal moderate votes. He's the best shot there is.
Frankly I don't think he's much differently politically. He's just a better manager. We need that. We've had a few decades of amateurs running things.
No he's not. Romney is a TERRIBLE manager. He's basically just Paul Sorvino from Goodfellas: he'll take over a company, sell its assets off in a fire sale, pocket the cash and leave the company hanging in the wind, often costing everyone their jobs in the process for his own personal gain. In fact, he even built and entire company to do just that on a large-scale basis.
That is the LAST person that you want running your country.
Also: Can you guys answer a question for me? Why is so much of the country opposed to universal health care? I honestly just don't understand that sentiment. I can't imagine it's all just propaganda and misinformation, nor can I internally understand why people would not want it.
Because our government is utterly incompetent. Have you not been paying attention?
LordofHats wrote:I agree at this point. Romney is the best candidate to run against Obama. I think the Republican base will hate Obama more than they dislike Romney, and Romney is close enough to the center and likable enough to steal moderate votes. He's the best shot there is.
Frankly I don't think he's much differently politically. He's just a better manager. We need that. We've had a few decades of amateurs running things.
No he's not. Romney is a TERRIBLE manager. He's basically just Paul Sorvino from Goodfellas: he'll take over a company, sell its assets off in a fire sale, pocket the cash and leave the company hanging in the wind, often costing everyone their jobs in the process for his own personal gain. In fact, he even built and entire company to do just that on a large-scale basis.
That is the LAST person that you want running your country.
Also: Can you guys answer a question for me? Why is so much of the country opposed to universal health care? I honestly just don't understand that sentiment. I can't imagine it's all just propaganda and misinformation, nor can I internally understand why people would not want it.
Because our government is utterly incompetent. Have you not been paying attention?
Also because unfortunately the thought of helping so many people with darker skin is infuriating to a certain segment of our population for some reason...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:
AustonT wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:So who will now pick up the mantle of "zaniest religious conservative"?
Brack Obama? I mean the door is wide open for the Obama Southern Strategy. No one will expect that kind of Change.
Doubtful since most southerners think he is Muslim.
I was being serious though.
With Santorum out someone will surely want to woo his supporters and will try to appeal to the Jesus votes to some degree.
the fact that the same people want to insist he is a muslim out one side of their mouth and also the follower of that guy out the other really points out all you need to know about many of his detractors.
They are so desperate to proclaim him some form of evil that thy can't even keep their own ranting straight.
Frazzled wrote:
Bush II couldn't manage his ass. He was a lightweight.
That's the point. Managerial experience doesn't make someone a good President because, ultimately, governments aren't companies. However, on the flip side, political experience doesn't make someone a good President either, because its a highly unique office.
Basically, everyone is winging it, and we largely select candidates based on ephemeral popularity. Hell, there's an argument to be made that direct, popular elections on the scale of the US Presidential election aren't in anyone's interest because we're effectively letting the people that generally know the least about policy have a direct say on who gets to make it.
Frazzled wrote:
Bush II couldn't manage his ass. He was a lightweight.
That's the point. Managerial experience doesn't make someone a good President because, ultimately, governments aren't companies. However, on the flip side, political experience doesn't make someone a good President either, because its a highly unique office.
Basically, everyone is winging it, and we largely select candidates based on ephemeral popularity. Hell, there's an argument to be made that direct, popular elections on the scale of the US Presidential election aren't in anyone's interest because we're effectively letting the people that generally know the least about policy have a direct say on who gets to make it.
Actually it supports my argument. To be a managerial president, you actually have to be able to manage.
Frazzled wrote:
Actually it supports my argument. To be a managerial president, you actually have to be able to manage.
That's wrong. When people discuss a President as being managerial they aren't talking about whether or not he's good at being managerial, they're talking about whether or not he is using a managerial approach to the office. Reagan was managerial and quite effective, in large part because he had a more sympathetic political climate than most modern Presidents have, and was a talented politician. Bush II was managerial and less effective, in large part because the climate was more hostile due the mistakes made by the people who he delegated tasks to, and because he was a mediocre politician.
Frazzled wrote: Actually it supports my argument. To be a managerial president, you actually have to be able to manage.
That's wrong. When people discuss a President as being managerial they aren't talking about whether or not he's good at being managerial, they're talking about whether or not he is using a managerial approach to the office. Reagan was managerial and quite effective, in large part because he had a more sympathetic political climate than most modern Presidents have, and was a talented politician. Bush II was managerial and less effective, in large part because the climate was more hostile due the mistakes made by the people who he delegated tasks to, and because he was a mediocre politician.
Thats your definition. Mine is the ability to manage the institutions and organs of government effectively and efficiently. Hah! I deny your reality and substitute my own!
Frazzled wrote:
Bush II couldn't manage his ass. He was a lightweight.
That's the point. Managerial experience doesn't make someone a good President because, ultimately, governments aren't companies. However, on the flip side, political experience doesn't make someone a good President either, because its a highly unique office.
Basically, everyone is winging it, and we largely select candidates based on ephemeral popularity. Hell, there's an argument to be made that direct, popular elections on the scale of the US Presidential election aren't in anyone's interest because we're effectively letting the people that generally know the least about policy have a direct say on who gets to make it.
Aye, that's the paradox of Democracy: everyone gets their say, but unfortunately everyone gets their say.
The only alternative is to put your faith in Caesar, and hope he's always in a good mood.
Or move to Canada. We've got lots of space available.
Santorum timed his drop out rather well, just long enough to get all the exposure he can get, but not so long he starts to be seen as gumming up the works (like Huckabee in 2008). It's given him a nice boost in approval ratings.
Problem is there's probably nowhere for him to go from here, nowhere to use that boost. He's unlikely to pick up the VP nomination, as his problem - considerable dislike among the general population - is the same problem Romney is facing. You don't pick a veep that compounds your own issues. And in Pennsylvania the current mayor is Republican, and eligible for another term in 2014, so unless something weird happens it'll be a long time before Santorum gets a crack at that. In the senate he could have another crack, and hope his national exposure is enough to overcome the thumping Democrat Bob Casey gave him in 2006 - but that's really unlikely.
So that leaves building money, raising his profile, and having another crack at the presidency in 4 years. But the Republican field is going to be much stronger, when Rubio, Ryan, Jindal, Bush will all be more likely than not to run, as well as some others who have risen up from the 2010 crop of Republicans. And it's unlikely the electorate will be in as much of a mood for an extreme candidate as Santorum, as there will likely have been economic recovery, and it will be an open election - which tends to more moderate candidates.
So as surprisingly well as Santorum has down out of this primary, it looks like he's pretty boxed in for where he might go from here. Which is, of course, a good thing.
Seaward wrote:Hmm.
If Obama wins reelection, the Republican candidate in 2016 is going to make Santorum look moderate. There's been a lot of screaming among the GOP base for the past four years about how a "true conservative" would easily sweep all 50 states, and the reason that they keep losing the general is that they keep nominating these gosh-darn centrist RINOs.
The Democrats have people making the same noises. They never really amount to anything. Both parties drift about the place. The current Republican drift rightwards has been about their most extreme, but likely only reflects the combined impact of the Bush II presidency and the fringe beating out the moderates in the 2008 'we just got thrashed what do we do now' freakout - and they only won that because the Tea Party was exceptionally well organised by FOX/the Koch brothers.
As well as the losing party typically running a more extreme candidate against the incumbent, and a more moderate candidate in an open election.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Thats your definition. Mine is the ability to manage the institutions and organs of government effectively and efficiently. Hah! I deny your reality and substitute my own!
And the point is that no-one has managed anything like the US federal government before becoming president. There is nothing on that scale (people who actually manage multi-nationals that are still at least an order of magnitude smaller but as close as you're going to get do not run for office), nothing on that level of diversity (BP may be massive, but ultimately it explores & extracts - compared to federal government which has hundreds of services to deliver), and nothing on Earth quite like the US federal government (corporations are not much of a comparison, because you simply don't create strategy in a company at all like you create policy in a government).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote:Aye, that's the paradox of Democracy: everyone gets their say, but unfortunately everyone gets their say.
True, but there are very different ways to give people a say. You can, for instance, let people choose their own local representative, and then let those people choose who will be running their government.
sebster wrote:
So as surprisingly well as Santorum has down out of this primary, it looks like he's pretty boxed in for where he might go from here. Which is, of course, a good thing.
He might have a shot at a House seat in 2014, but I'd have to look at a district map.
azazel the cat wrote:Aye, that's the paradox of Democracy: everyone gets their say, but unfortunately everyone gets their say.
True, but there are very different ways to give people a say. You can, for instance, let people choose their own local representative, and then let those people choose who will be running their government.
Yeah, that's how we do it up here. It makes things very, very easy, and is IMO the best system in the world.
Here is our voting process:
We stand in voting booths one at a time and are given a ballot with the names of our local representatives on it. These ballots will typically have between 2 and 5 names on it. Beside each name is a large circle. We then use a pen or pencil to put an X into the circle beside the name of the person we are voting for. Then we but our ballot into a sealed box. At the end of the night, the ballots are all counted by hand, and a winner is declared.
We find it hilarious that anyone could possibly screw this up.
azazel the cat wrote:Yeah, that's how we do it up here. It makes things very, very easy, and is IMO the best system in the world.
And here as well, having also been a British colony at one time Only difference is we rank our candidates, so if you want to vote for a minor candidate you still get to signal your preference between the most popular candidates.
azazel the cat wrote:Yeah, that's how we do it up here. It makes things very, very easy, and is IMO the best system in the world.
And here as well, having also been a British colony at one time Only difference is we rank our candidates, so if you want to vote for a minor candidate you still get to signal your preference between the most popular candidates.
Do y'all do that in the same style as New Zealand? Because I personally loathe that system. It's bulky and overly complicated, and almost never will put forward a reasonable option. It changes the dynamic entirely, all for the sake of every precious little snowflake getting to think their vote counts, even after their first choice is mathematically eliminated.
And so begins his lucrative speaking and lobbying tour, and at least some fundraising for the time being. Suspending rather than shutting down your campaign truly is the new black.
I'm surprised Gingrich has hung in so long; with him being so deep in debt. It must be pretty tough going out every night and claiming your the best person to run the country because you're such a kickass manager when you ran your own campaign nearly 5 million dollars in debt; but a sense of shame (or self-awareness) has never been a virtue Newt possessed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: My coworker found this gem:
LordofHats wrote:I agree at this point. Romney is the best candidate to run against Obama. I think the Republican base will hate Obama more than they dislike Romney, and Romney is close enough to the center and likable enough to steal moderate votes. He's the best shot there is.
Frankly I don't think he's much differently politically. He's just a better manager. We need that. We've had a few decades of amateurs running things.
No he's not. Romney is a TERRIBLE manager. He's basically just Paul Sorvino from Goodfellas: he'll take over a company, sell its assets off in a fire sale, pocket the cash and leave the company hanging in the wind, often costing everyone their jobs in the process for his own personal gain. In fact, he even built and entire company to do just that on a large-scale basis.
That is the LAST person that you want running your country.
That may be the last person you want running your country. But, you just described a GREAT manager, not a terrible one.
Capitalism works best when everyone is out for themselves to make the most money they can. The companies that Romney took over and pieced out were companies with bad business strategies that left them in a position where they were more valuable being sold for scrap than to keep doing what they were doing. They were better off being liquidated.
It sucks for the workers, but creating jobs isn't what capitalism is about. It's about creating wealth.
I think folks are mis-measuring Santorum. The question is not, or rather is not only, what will the man himself do now regarding an office. However wacky you or I might think his ideology is, it's quite likely that he's is entirely sincere. As such, Santorum's game was not necessarily "become vice president" or "launch back into Congress." No one expected he'd be the last man standing; more significantly, no one believed Santorum would leave Romney with such a deep red hand print stinging on his cheek.
Every time the Republican Party betrays a Bush, they lose the White House for eight years -- mark my words. The betrayal of GWB was particularly disastrous because it amounted to a repudiation of neo-conservatism. Political identity, no matter what the papers say, is not grown up over night. It took maybe thirty, maybe fifty years for the party to achieve its configuration in 2000 but only eight years to trash it: goodbye John McCain, hello Sarah Palin. Even worse, the sweep in 2010 seems to have been all sound and fury. Turns out that radicalized liberterian rhetoric is difficult to translate into governance, go figure. And conservative voters are not so on board as the rallies might suggest.
These developments are all extremely worrisome for a man like Rick Santorum. The party of patriotism devoting itself to tearing down the federal government? The party of propriety dismissing homosexual marriage as meaningless (if icky) as long as it generates no taxes? To Santorum, this sounds more like the death than the evolution of American conservatism. A huge number of Americans apparently agreed with him. If Santorum set out to prove that Tea Party "conservatism" does not speak for the Republican party then he was tremendously successful.
Im not sure about this, I heard it from me mum, But i hear the reason he "SAID" he dropped out was because of his handicapped little girl. Again. Second hand so i cant substantiate this.
That's what I read in the newspaper. She's got a rare genetic disorder and had been rushed to hospital. So he quit the next day, apparently. Which is fair enough. I don't like the guy at all but having to deal with a sick toddler is rough for anyone.
I'm always sticking up for the Yanks over here, Europeans seem to slag you guys off far more than you deserve. My brother said "No way will Americans vote for a black bloke!" when I easily predicted months in advance (not rocket science if you live in America obviously) an Obama win, and the same goes for this guy.
Basically, 15-20% of your country make the rest look bad.
There is no way that that a homophobic Religious zealot of his stripe would ever get enough of the vote to seriously run against the Democratic nominee. He makes Bush look like an infidel!
The 1/5 of the US populous that think knowing the bible inside out is actually a better quality than being a good fething president don't get to pick who is in charge, that's called democracy, and that's why it works.
mattyrm wrote: I'm always sticking up for the Yanks over here, Europeans seem to slag you guys off far more than you deserve. My brother said "No way will Americans vote for a black bloke!" when I easily predicted months in advance (not rocket science if you live in America obviously) an Obama win, and the same goes for this guy.
Basically, 15-20% of your country make the rest look bad.
There is no way that that a homophobic Religious zealot of his stripe would ever get enough of the vote to seriously run against the Democratic nominee. He makes Bush look like an infidel!
The 1/5 of the US populous that think knowing the bible inside out is actually a better quality than being a good fething president don't get to pick who is in charge, that's called democracy, and that's why it works.
LordofHats wrote:I agree at this point. Romney is the best candidate to run against Obama. I think the Republican base will hate Obama more than they dislike Romney, and Romney is close enough to the center and likable enough to steal moderate votes. He's the best shot there is.
I don't know about that. Romney can't woo the rightiest rights without alienating moderates. And vice versa. Remember that plenty of people hated Bush with a passion in 2004, but he still won the race because his opponent didn't give enough reason for people to vote for *him.* Hate isn't enough. Romney also has to reverse some negative trends among moderates and women. Do the Etch-A-Sketch thing and you probably play right into the hands of Obama's team, who I estimate have 7,258 ads calling Romney a flipflopper already produced.
I kinda look at Romney as a GOP version of John Kerry -- a New Englander who is somehow a lesser candidate than he really should be on paper, and someone who has the "flipflopper" albatross affixed permanently around his neck. Anything can certainly happen between now and November, although I'd suggest that a) it would probably take a catastrophe of some type to unseat Obama, and that b) Romney has a tough row to hoe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:Problem is there's probably nowhere for him to go from here, nowhere to use that boost. He's unlikely to pick up the VP nomination, as his problem - considerable dislike among the general population - is the same problem Romney is facing. You don't pick a veep that compounds your own issues. And in Pennsylvania the current mayor is Republican, and eligible for another term in 2014, so unless something weird happens it'll be a long time before Santorum gets a crack at that. In the senate he could have another crack, and hope his national exposure is enough to overcome the thumping Democrat Bob Casey gave him in 2006 - but that's really unlikely.
A couple points about Pennsylvania politics -- while basically every PA governor ever has been re-elected, Tom Corbett has people on both sides of the aisle throwing stones at him right now. He's *extremely* vulnerable. But obviously the identity of the Dem candidate is a major factor. Also, Santorum won't do much in PA ever again, IMO. He grew far too conservative for a "purple" state like PA, at least publicly.
I think you're selling Santorum a bit short, though. The guy can rally the traditional conservative base, and he's always going to have a role and a place because of that. That might mean more of kingmaker role within the party than holding public office again, but he's certainly in a much better spot now than he was a few years ago. Said it before here and I'll say it again...you can hate the guy for his politics, but you have to respect him as a campaigner. What he did during the primary season was pretty remarkable, and wasn't just due to a perfect storm of conditions like some suggest.
I don't see the main tension is between capturing hardliners versus moderates. The common denominator among Republican "moderates" is dislike of Barak Obama. The tension is therefore between the far-rightists who emphasize government control of social values (no homosexual marriage, no pornography, no abortion, etc) and the far-rightists who emphasize dismantling the government (no taxes, no health care, etc). The assumption, which Romney will be pushing very hard very soon, is that they neatly overlap. The primaries tend to undermine that account, however.
I don't know about that. Romney can't woo the rightiest rights without alienating moderates.
I thought this as well, but frankly while the rightest of the right will not like Romney, I think they don't like Obama more. They'll do what the rest of us do. Pick the lesser of two evils and to them, Romney I think is going to come out as the lesser evil.
LordofHats wrote:I agree at this point. Romney is the best candidate to run against Obama. I think the Republican base will hate Obama more than they dislike Romney, and Romney is close enough to the center and likable enough to steal moderate votes. He's the best shot there is.
Frankly I don't think he's much differently politically. He's just a better manager. We need that. We've had a few decades of amateurs running things.
No he's not. Romney is a TERRIBLE manager. He's basically just Paul Sorvino from Goodfellas: he'll take over a company, sell its assets off in a fire sale, pocket the cash and leave the company hanging in the wind, often costing everyone their jobs in the process for his own personal gain. In fact, he even built and entire company to do just that on a large-scale basis.
That is the LAST person that you want running your country.
That may be the last person you want running your country. But, you just described a GREAT manager, not a terrible one.
Capitalism works best when everyone is out for themselves to make the most money they can. The companies that Romney took over and pieced out were companies with bad business strategies that left them in a position where they were more valuable being sold for scrap than to keep doing what they were doing. They were better off being liquidated.
It sucks for the workers, but creating jobs isn't what capitalism is about. It's about creating wealth.
No wealth is created in doing so; it was simply reallocated. To himself. That's not a great manager.
A great manager will turn a malfunctioning business model into a working one, thus keeping the company afloat.
A terribly, self-interested manager will turn a malfunctioning business model into a failed business model and personally pocket its few remaining assets while the ship goes down.
Romney is the latter.
Also, this weird notion of "creating" wealth is a falsehood. Economic wealth is not created, because economics is a zero-sum game. It can only be re-allocated. But it has to come from somewhere.
I don't know about that. Romney can't woo the rightiest rights without alienating moderates.
I thought this as well, but frankly while the rightest of the right will not like Romney, I think they don't like Obama more. They'll do what the rest of us do. Pick the lesser of two evils and to them, Romney I think is going to come out as the lesser evil.
One part of the equation here is that voter turnout can drop when partisans aren't enthusiastic about their candidate. People would rather be inspired.
From stuff I've read, the Obama team plans to embrace and "own" things like Obamacare and not run away from them. Which I think is very smart, and right out of the Dubya/Rove playbook. It's the old "you might not agree with me, but you know where I stand and that I did what I said I would do" approach that works because people tend to vote for the devil they know, especially in presidential races. It should be especially powerful against Romney, who really can't criticize health care since he passed similar legislation in his home state. Unless he feels like throwing gasoline on top of the flipflopper fire. Romney's in a tough spot here for a variety of reasons.
IMO, there appear to be three possibilities in November -- 1) Romney wins a nailbiter, 2) Obama wins a nailbiter, and 3) Obama wins comfortably, although short of a landslide. I think Romney has very little margin for error, which is not a good place to be. The one good thing for him is that it's only April.
Gorgon wrote: I don't know about that. Romney can't woo the rightiest rights without alienating moderates.
Quite frankly he doesn't NEED to woo the rightie rights once he UAS the nomination they are in his pocket. Through a combination of racism, anti-socialism, and other wierdo positions they simply will NEVER vote for Obama. Wooing the moderates is the ONLY thing Romney has to do to win, the deep right isn't going to cross the party line just because they don't like Romney.
AustonT wrote:Quite frankly he doesn't NEED to woo the rightie rights once he UAS the nomination they are in his pocket. Through a combination of racism, anti-socialism, and other wierdo positions they simply will NEVER vote for Obama. Wooing the moderates is the ONLY thing Romney has to do to win, the deep right isn't going to cross the party line just because they don't like Romney.
While it's certainly true that the far right wing won't jump ship and vote for Obama if they hate Romney, it is possible that they may dislike Romney enough to simply not vote (or vote for whatever minor candidate they fancy). That has the potential to be problematic for Romney, and is why he needs to pander to them at least a little.
Anti-Obama sentiment will win Romney second place in the general election. Therefore, the important question is what will having nominated Romney mean in the wake of his defeat to the competing shades of Republicans. Santorum's crowd will shake a finger at the Tea Partiers, chiding "we told you so!"
Gorgon wrote: I don't know about that. Romney can't woo the rightiest rights without alienating moderates.
Quite frankly he doesn't NEED to woo the rightie rights once he UAS the nomination they are in his pocket. Through a combination of racism, anti-socialism, and other wierdo positions they simply will NEVER vote for Obama. Wooing the moderates is the ONLY thing Romney has to do to win, the deep right isn't going to cross the party line just because they don't like Romney.
Was ninjaed a bit by Icy Cool, but no, it really doesn't work that way.
For one thing, you assume a fixed amount of people headed to the polls. Some partisans would rather stay home than go to the polls to vote for someone they aren't enthusiastic about. This is a reality in politics, and I also think you underestimate some of the divisions in the GOP right now. Will Romney get most of the available GOP votes? Sure. But "most" isn't going to get the job done in November. He needs a motivated and unified GOP turning out in big numbers, AND to woo some moderates to his side even though they're moving toward Obama. That's a game of Twister, right there.
And honestly, I dunno that Obama is any more hated by righties than Clinton was. Heck, they tried to impeach him and spent years and millions trying to bring him down. Nor is he any more hated than Bush was by lefties. Note that both men were re-elected.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:Anti-Obama sentiment will win Romney second place in the general election. Therefore, the important question is what will having nominated Romney mean in the wake of his defeat to the competing shades of Republicans. Santorum's crowd will shake a finger at the Tea Partiers, chiding "we told you so!"
Eventually I think we'll see the GOP become more moderate again. With demographics trending against them, I don't see how they have much choice. IMO, the Tea Party got it half-right. The answer for the GOP is refocusing on economic issues and taxes. There are plenty of registered Republicans in northern states like PA who'd be happy to vote for a GOP candidate if they just talked more about taxes than bedrooms, religion, and the legality of certain medical procedures. But those people have been going Dem in the national races even as they vote straight GOP in the local ones.
Where the Tea Party obviously got it wrong is all the wingnut stuff.
AustonT wrote:Quite frankly he doesn't NEED to woo the rightie rights once he UAS the nomination they are in his pocket. Through a combination of racism, anti-socialism, and other wierdo positions they simply will NEVER vote for Obama. Wooing the moderates is the ONLY thing Romney has to do to win, the deep right isn't going to cross the party line just because they don't like Romney.
While it's certainly true that the far right wing won't jump ship and vote for Obama if they hate Romney, it is possible that they may dislike Romney enough to simply not vote (or vote for whatever minor candidate they fancy). That has the potential to be problematic for Romney, and is why he needs to pander to them at least a little.
I think you're mising the point. Obama pisses righties off enough to get up and vote, almost in the way (or because of) Obama was able to mobilize new voters in his campaign. Those voters are in the bag for Romney, he simply has to convince them he can win. That fight is in the media polls. Romney needs to convince moderates and independants to support him enough publically that polls show him up on Obama. Then those righties will flock to the polls under the "well feth it's still Romney but anyone is better than Obama" banner. The base that Romney needs to mobilize is the centre not the wing, the wing will vote anyway. If they stay at home they really have no right to complain about how bad Obama is ever again, because they got thier chance.
The odds are very good this will be a closer race than I would have anticipated when the primaries began and we all went "WTF?!?" at the pack. It wont be decided by fringe voters: you know like every other election.
gorgon wrote:Eventually I think we'll see the GOP become more moderate again.
I think they will have to in order to survive politically. I am surprised they haven't already with how the country turned away from Bush politics in 2008, basically handing the presidency to Obama with the quack job that was Palin being associated with republicans. Caine's biggest error in judgement right there.
It is a mark of obvious hypocrisy when they tell you that homosexual couples cannot get married and in the same breath scream about less government.
Social conservatism is on its way out, and the bible thumpers can scream about it all they want but the majority of the country is evolving away from concerning themselves about personal liberties being constrained by religion under the guise of government.
Republicans should stick to what they do best, and that is fiscal conservatism. No political party has any business sticking their nose into social issues such as homosexuality.
Many see homosexuality as the next civil rights movement. Not many segregationist politicians lasted after the racial civil liberties were dealt with. Such precedence should be viewed as political suicide to adhere that strongly and Santorum showed that while his views were popular with certain demographics, it wasn't popular enough to be the majority thought pattern.
Repubs need to stick to fiscal conservatism. They would be more likely to get my votes that way instead of sticking their noses into peoples bedrooms and ovaries.
I'd say the GOP will have to become even more radical to survive. That is what we've seen between 2000 and now, especially since 2008. The GOP has pulled the whole country toward the right. Republicans who have remained moderate will find a comfy home in the Democratic Party, which has always been roomy but has more right-of-center space now than ever before. The GOP, meanwhile, will rely on radicalized young, inexperienced politicos to refresh its numbers. This is kind of like the Cultural Revolution. If it's red or dead and somebody has to die then you had better be redder than anybody else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hellfury wrote:Social conservatism is on its way out ...
Rather, what was considered progressivism in the sixties has reified into the current social conservatism.
gorgon wrote:Eventually I think we'll see the GOP become more moderate again.
I think they will have to in order to survive politically. I am surprised they haven't already with how the country turned away from Bush politics in 2008, basically handing the presidency to Obama with the quack job that was Palin being associated with republicans. Caine's biggest error in judgement right there.
It was going to swing one way or the other after 2008 for sure. It seems that Romney has been the choice of the GOP elite for some time now, so you could argue his nomination is actually a move to the middle -- and toward economic/financial issues -- even as the ground floor of the party seems to get more ideological and shrill. But that's problematic for Romney and the GOP...although he's the candidate most able to beat Obama, he doesn't really represent the current reality of his party.
IMO, the loss in 2008 stung the GOP -- and especially the rightiest rights -- incredibly badly. I mean, they had their old white war hero named John McCain lose to a younger black man named Barack Obama. In their world view, that's just not supposed to happen. So the response at the ground level of the party was less thoughtful and calculating and more emotional and visceral. That spawned all the pockets of denial (birthers), anger (Tea Party), etc, even as the party elite realize course adjustments are necessary.
Manchu wrote:I'd say the GOP will have to become even more radical to survive.
It's interesting.
I mean, they obviously agree. Once they knew they were not going to be in power in 2008, instead of understanding where they lost the majority they instead clung on to radical ideology even more tightly.
The only reasoning I can think of for this is if they do not maintain such radical opposition to social liberalism, then they have admitted that Bush II politics were flawed and need to be addressed. Or that if democrats getting anything done during their occupancy, that it is tantamount to heresy as they would get credit for doing anything positive for the country.
But while I view myself as a social liberal, I am very much a fiscal moderate. I would love to vote for more moderate or conservative fiscal representatives, yet their social mores are akin to ignorance on a fundamental level.
I could be won over by a fiscal conservative that keeps his nose out of social affairs. From what I am seeing (anecdotal, I know), I think I am not alone in this.
The current radical GOP climate is preventing a lot more voters to swing their way than they are attracting from social conservatives. I have no basis for that assertion other than my own belief, but many conservative repubs I know refuse to vote repub because their relatives have homosexual members or are feminist enough to scorn the thought of government invading their reproductive systems.
GOP is trying to prove you can catch more flies with vinegar than honey, but while they are succeeding at least partially, it still ignores that honey is better bait.
Hellfury wrote:
Repubs need to stick to fiscal conservatism. They would be more likely to get my votes that way instead of sticking their nosesgiant, cold, probing wands into peoples bedrooms and ovaries.
There. I fixed that for you.
Hellfury wrote:GOP is trying to prove you can catch more flies with vinegar than honey, but while they are succeeding at least partially, it still ignores that honey is better bait.
But out some balsamic vinegar and see what happens.
I get the impression that the religious extreme will be the direction that the GOP continues to head into, simply because it happens to coincide with nicely with corporate de-regulation, which is the real aim of the GOp, since that's where their money comes from. However, I think it's getting harder and harder to sell middle-class America on the latter, so it becomes more necessary to intertwince it with the former.
However, as an outside I suspect that I get only a very skewed perspective of all this from the media.
so even up here in canada the local paper has declared romney the man. the told about how santorum quit the race, but never mentioned ron paul. even up here in canada the man gets no press
IcyCool wrote:While it's certainly true that the far right wing won't jump ship and vote for Obama if they hate Romney, it is possible that they may dislike Romney enough to simply not vote (or vote for whatever minor candidate they fancy). That has the potential to be problematic for Romney, and is why he needs to pander to them at least a little.
I think you're mising the point. Obama pisses righties off enough to get up and vote, almost in the way (or because of) Obama was able to mobilize new voters in his campaign. Those voters are in the bag for Romney, he simply has to convince them he can win. That fight is in the media polls. Romney needs to convince moderates and independants to support him enough publically that polls show him up on Obama. Then those righties will flock to the polls under the "well feth it's still Romney but anyone is better than Obama" banner. The base that Romney needs to mobilize is the centre not the wing, the wing will vote anyway. If they stay at home they really have no right to complain about how bad Obama is ever again, because they got thier chance.
The odds are very good this will be a closer race than I would have anticipated when the primaries began and we all went "WTF?!?" at the pack. It wont be decided by fringe voters: you know like every other election.
I think this argument doesn't hold up in relation to the last couple of Presidential elections. Each of those was in large part determined by which side was better able to mobilize their base. Bush beat down Kerry in significant part because of the Republican strategy of getting anti-gay marriage ballot measures and Constitutional amendments on state ballots in 2008, thus getting the Evangelical vote out in droves.
I'm probably voting for Romney this time around. I'm due for a switch. It's gone Bush, Kerry, Obama. Time to head back to the middle. Plus, much as I like him, we really do need to get some economic growth going, and I'm starting to buy the Republican argument on that.
I can't get behind "lower taxes = recovery". Low taxes + high expenditures + deregulation for eight years drove the economy into the hole, and I don't see much evidence that Romney's not planning more Bush-style economic polices. We had a colossal collapse and it's naturally taking a while to fully recover. Romney's trying to say Obama's had three years of failure, but that's silly on its face. We dug ourselves a damn deep hole and it's taking a while to climb back out. But the economy has been improving, and unemployment getting better. Fraz swore we were going to have a double-dip recession, but i haven't seen it yet.
I think the argument the Dems need to make is that if you take a wrong turn, and drive the wrong way for eight years, it takes more than three years to get back where you want to be, even after turning 180 degrees.
IcyCool wrote:While it's certainly true that the far right wing won't jump ship and vote for Obama if they hate Romney, it is possible that they may dislike Romney enough to simply not vote (or vote for whatever minor candidate they fancy). That has the potential to be problematic for Romney, and is why he needs to pander to them at least a little.
I think you're mising the point. Obama pisses righties off enough to get up and vote, almost in the way (or because of) Obama was able to mobilize new voters in his campaign. Those voters are in the bag for Romney, he simply has to convince them he can win. That fight is in the media polls. Romney needs to convince moderates and independants to support him enough publically that polls show him up on Obama. Then those righties will flock to the polls under the "well feth it's still Romney but anyone is better than Obama" banner. The base that Romney needs to mobilize is the centre not the wing, the wing will vote anyway. If they stay at home they really have no right to complain about how bad Obama is ever again, because they got thier chance.
The odds are very good this will be a closer race than I would have anticipated when the primaries began and we all went "WTF?!?" at the pack. It wont be decided by fringe voters: you know like every other election.
I think this argument doesn't hold up in relation to the last couple of Presidential elections. Each of those was in large part determined by which side was better able to mobilize their base. Bush beat down Kerry in significant part because of the Republican strategy of getting anti-gay marriage ballot measures and Constitutional amendments on state ballots in 2008, thus getting the Evangelical vote out in droves.
I think you meant in 2004; it's 2012 and the incumbent is Barack Obama...if you see where I'm going with this.Bush beat down Kerry because as a politician he was a cardboard cut out. Which is a shame because John Kerry the man is kind of a bad ass: Silver Star, Bronze Star, 3 Purple Hearts; and recently just shy of 70 a black eye from playing hockey (if that was a true story). Also, Bush didn't really "beat down" Kerry the popular spread was 51% to 48% much smaller than McCain's loss to BarryO who beat him down to the tune of 53% to 46% although the state count was closer in 2008 the electoral vote was a vast gulf.
From the 1992 election to the 2008 election we saw a lot of relatively close fights, some obviously less close than others. Clinton beat Bush Sr by a wide margin but we don't look back and think man he trounced him, Dole on the other hand got pounded: or did he. Dole and Bush received nearly the same number of votes, and Clinton only gained 3M even though 10M LESS people voted for Perot. Really the closest races we saw recently were Bush/Gore (duh) and Bush/Kerry pretty much the lot of them bleh candidates.
I could be wrong, I frequently am, but I think that pandering to the far right will hurt Romney more than help him. They already don't like him, they wont like him, if they are going to vote they have no other choice anyway. Why waste time or money on them? The voters Romney CAN reach are moderate Reps, conservative Dems, and Independents his focus should be there. Obama is providing all the momentum to mobilize the rightie base with Obama-care, Eric Holder (the man himself is an issue, Barry should have dumped him last year or the second he played the race card), perception of him as a gun grabber, and his persona on the right as a socialist. What Romney has to do is avoid looking like any of those things (he's kind of hosed on healthcare) and hope to God he can be more popular than Obama(but don't say God).
Romney's definitely the guy to play to moderates more, but the question is whether the folks who hate Obama and love Santorum will find Romney conservative enough to get out and vote for. If he spends the next four+ months running to the middle, especially.
Know something good about santorum,
He faought alot of worthy causes, Like congressional aid for HIV/AIDS, Autism Research, and in some cases helped the poor.
Automatically Appended Next Post: y'know, I know feel bad for making fun of santorum, He is going and went through alot that he should have to. He seems like a nice guy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:
AustonT wrote:
Amaya wrote:hmm, Obama or a Mormon?
I choose Obama.
Bigoted much?
I would vote for a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, and so forth before I voted for a Mormon.
So yes, I am bigoted against Mormonism.
I hate say it buuuuut, I agree. My best friend is mormon, and he devotion to his religion is leading him down a really stupid path.
Quitting school to go on a mission is just.....Well, it explains itself.
And the fact he said he wants to have kids as soon as possible.(only 20)
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Quitting school to go on a mission is just.....Well, it explains itself.
That's not a huge deal, and its actually pretty good experience, and will look good on any resume.
Hell, I have a friend that dropped out his Junior year to kick around Central Asia for a year, and he still ended up graduating from a good school, and now he works for the Red Cross.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:
I would vote for a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, and so forth before I voted for a Mormon.
So yes, I am bigoted against Mormonism.
I'm generally wary of anyone that strikes me as too religious when it comes to voting. Romney is fine, his Mormonism doesn't seem central to any of his political positions, nor can it be really. If he started quoting Brigham Young his campaign would have lasted a day.
In any event, I agree with Auston that, barring some utter fiasco on one side or the other, it's going to be a very tight race. I also agree that Romney should try to capture moderates, rather than conservatives. I think they will have more influence (the base is going to vote anyway, and their enthusiasm gap for Romney is going to be cancelled out for their dislike of Obama). It's going to be harder to appeal to the center after saying ridiculous hard-right stuff in the primaries, and frankly after his etch-a-sketch stuff he needs to strongly avoid the impression that his beliefs are utterly malleable.
Ouze wrote:...(the base is going to vote anyway, and their enthusiasm gap for Romney is going to be cancelled out for their dislike of Obama).
Well, I think the thing is really that if the base isn't motivated to vote against Obama, its unlikely that Romney will be able to motivate them to vote for Romney, so it might not be worth his time.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Know something good about santorum,
He faought alot of worthy causes, Like congressional aid for HIV/AIDS, Autism Research, and in some cases helped the poor.
So he's willing to give money to treat people with HIV, but completely against prevention of HIV. (safe-sex education, condoms, etc.)
That is assinine, both fiscally and in principle.
hotsauceman1 wrote:y'know, I know feel bad for making fun of santorum, He is going and went through alot that he should have to. He seems like a nice guy.
He seems like a nice guy unless you live a lifestyle that doesn't conform to his own narrow worldview; in which case he'd like to see you suffer rather than let bygones be bygones. He is a living avatar of religious oppression over your personal life.
Amaya wrote:I would vote for a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, and so forth before I voted for a Mormon.
So yes, I am bigoted against Mormonism.
I won't say anything in response because you haven't stated a motive. May I ask what fuels the decision to vote specifically against Mormons?
hotsauceman1 wrote:I hate say it buuuuut, I agree. My best friend is mormon, and he devotion to his religion is leading him down a really stupid path.
Quitting school to go on a mission is just.....Well, it explains itself.
You do know that they come back after about a year, right? This is absolutely no different than kids that take a year off to go backpacking or just generally go Kerouac on every's ass for a year before going to college.
hotsauceman1 wrote:And the fact he said he wants to have kids as soon as possible.(only 20)
I really don't understand your reasoning. Granted, it's not my chosen path, either. But I don't see the internal stupidity that you're proclaiming.
Hellfury wrote:
Repubs need to stick to fiscal conservatism. They would be more likely to get my votes that way instead of sticking their nosesgiant, cold, probing wands into peoples bedrooms and ovaries.
There. I fixed that for you.
Hellfury wrote:GOP is trying to prove you can catch more flies with vinegar than honey, but while they are succeeding at least partially, it still ignores that honey is better bait.
But out some balsamic vinegar and see what happens.
I get the impression that the religious extreme will be the direction that the GOP continues to head into, simply because it happens to coincide with nicely with corporate de-regulation, which is the real aim of the GOp, since that's where their money comes from. However, I think it's getting harder and harder to sell middle-class America on the latter, so it becomes more necessary to intertwince it with the former.
However, as an outside I suspect that I get only a very skewed perspective of all this from the media.
I'd agree if the Democrats did the same thing. Of course at that point that means everyone's a Libertarian - like me- yet I see all kinds people willing to get into my personal business.
Romney's definitely the guy to play to moderates more, but the question is whether the folks who hate Obama and love Santorum will find Romney conservative enough to get out and vote for. If he spends the next four+ months running to the middle, especially.
Yeah, a good chunk of the GOP base doesn't like him already. How are they going to like Romney after he spends months courting moderates? And how would he court moderates, exactly? By changing his position *again* on things like abortion and health care? Flipflopper alert! Seriously, you can't say he'll "appeal to moderates" but act as though there'll be no repercussions for that.
Like I said earlier, it's quite the game of Twister when you don't have your base firmly behind you. It also doesn't help that they haven't found a central message for his campaign with any traction. It's good for him that it's only April, because his team has a lot of work to do.
Ouze wrote:In any event, I agree with Auston that, barring some utter fiasco on one side or the other, it's going to be a very tight race. I also agree that Romney should try to capture moderates, rather than conservatives. I think they will have more influence (the base is going to vote anyway, and their enthusiasm gap for Romney is going to be cancelled out for their dislike of Obama). It's going to be harder to appeal to the center after saying ridiculous hard-right stuff in the primaries, and frankly after his etch-a-sketch stuff he needs to strongly avoid the impression that his beliefs are utterly malleable.
The problem for Romney is that particular genie is already out of the bottle. Did you see the SNL skit with him at the RPGA conference, etc.? The flipflopper narrative is already out there and well-established. And Obama's team will be feeding that fire from now to November.
Truthfully I don't see how any politician in our era can avoid the "flipflopper" label with how clownish our primary system is. Maybe we can tweak our system to one that doesn't require you to say extreme nonsense to pander to your base and then, once nominated, distance yourself from all of those things you said in the long-ago dark days of, like, 3 months ago to appeal to the mainstream.
I really wish we'd abolish the whole electoral system entirely, truth be told. Maybe strict term limits all around, along with a jury duty style lottery for all currently elective offices.
azazel the cat wrote:Also: Can you guys answer a question for me? Why is so much of the country opposed to universal health care? I honestly just don't understand that sentiment. I can't imagine it's all just propaganda and misinformation, nor can I internally understand why people would not want it.
Are the stories of British ambulances sitting around with patients for hours waiting to get into the emergency rooms, etc, inaccurate?
Are the stories of Canadians coming to America for healthcare inaccurate?
I've heard that you purchase your meds up there, but come down here for procedures even though you have (theoretically) already ponied up for it up there.
Cheers, eh?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
I don't know about that. Romney can't woo the rightiest rights without alienating moderates.
I thought this as well, but frankly while the rightest of the right will not like Romney, I think they don't like Obama more. They'll do what the rest of us do. Pick the lesser of two evils and to them, Romney I think is going to come out as the lesser evil.
Despite my dislike of Obama, even though I'm a far right wing conservative I could never vote for someone that based his life around a fraudulent religion concocted by Joe Smith.
I will vote 3rd party, as usual. I prefer to vote for someone, rather than the lesser of two evils.
Cheers,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:I can't get behind "lower taxes = recovery". Low taxes + high expenditures + deregulation for eight years drove the economy into the hole, ....
Not really.
What created the financial crisis was started with the community reinvestment act. Janet Reno forced banks to give home loans to people that could not afford the house because of social justice. Banks were left holding bad loans, and being creative and profit-driven they came up with a way to bundle, market, and profit off of them as long as the bubble held.
Democrats in congress for years defended the CRA, despite warnings from experts and republicans.
Janet Reno forced banks to comply by threatening a governmental prostrate exam of their companies. Nobody wants that, even if you are clean!
It has been historically proven that low taxes does equal economic growth. anyone that says otherwise is lying, uninformed, or misinformed.
Government tinkering and micro/macro-managing hinders this process.
Deficit spending, regardless of how much revenue comes in, will hurt an economy because as the CRA proved, the bill always eventually comes in.
Phanatik wrote:Not really.
What created the financial crisis was started with the community reinvestment act. Janet Reno forced banks to give home loans to people that could not afford the house because of social justice. Banks were left holding bad loans, and being creative and profit-driven they came up with a way to bundle, market, and profit off of them as long as the bubble held.
Democrats in congress for years defended the CRA, despite warnings from experts and republicans.
While I agree the Clinton adminstration got the ball rolling for the whole mess based on some belief that home ownership equals a way out of poverty, what followed wasn't all because "Janet Reno told them to."
I mean, when banks were happily giving out NINA loans (no income, no assets) and NINJA loans (no income, no job, no assets), it was fairly obvious that things had gone way off the rails. Helping the working poor achieve home ownership is one thing. Creating an almost Ponzi-like scheme whereby mortgages with no hope of being paid off were given out, collateralized, and bought and sold is another, and something that government (both parties), financial institutions and individual Americans all have to share some blame for.
Additionally, of course, George W. Bush made increased home ownership a major part of his platform in part by relaxing lending requirements. There were many, many causes to the financial crisis, and it's not possible to blame any one law, party, or administration.
Ouze wrote:Additionally, of course, George W. Bush made increased home ownership a major part of his platform in part by relaxing lending requirements. There were many, many causes to the financial crisis, and it's not possible to blame any one law, party, or administration.
If Dubya forced the banks to give loans to people that they couldn't qualify for, he should be kicked out of office.
azazel the cat wrote:Also: Can you guys answer a question for me? Why is so much of the country opposed to universal health care? I honestly just don't understand that sentiment. I can't imagine it's all just propaganda and misinformation, nor can I internally understand why people would not want it.
Are the stories of British ambulances sitting around with patients for hours waiting to get into the emergency rooms, etc, inaccurate?
I can't speak for England, but as for Canada: yes, those are completely inaccurate. Our hostpitals have a triage system that determines who gets into an emergency room. So if you show up in the ER with a sprained ankle, then you'll probably have to wait for an hour, depending on how busy it is. However, if you show up in the ER and actually need to go to the ER, then you will never have to wait.
Phanatik wrote:Are the stories of Canadians coming to America for healthcare inaccurate?
Completely inaccurate. Canadian doctors on their own are just as good as American doctors (it's the exact same training, often from the same schools), however Canadian doctors do not have their hands tied by private insurance companies. And nobody in Canada ever has to wait for life-saving surgery. However, minor elective surgeries tend to get pushed back when there is a need to more important surgeries.
Phanatik wrote:I've heard that you purchase your meds up there, but come down here for procedures even though you have (theoretically) already ponied up for it up there.
Nobody in their right mind would do this. There are isolated incidents of this happening (only a few per year, nationwide) and they are always the same story: someone wants an elective surgery, but doesn't want to wait two or three months, and so they go down South to pay a stupid price to have it done. These procedures are NEVER life-saving; they are always something menial like having your foot operated on because of a bone spur.
A general rule of thumb regarding health care: whatever Glenn Beck & Fox News says about Canadian healthcare is generally going to be incorrect.
And how about the death panels? I mean, are you personally satisfied with the service provided by the death panels we've been told go along with nationalized healthcare.
Manchu wrote:And how about the death panels? I mean, are you personally satisfied with the service provided by the death panels we've been told go along with nationalized healthcare.
Obama's death panels are pretty cool. I especially liked it when he used one to go kill Osama.
I have to admit, I was skeptical of the death panels when Sarah Palin first mentioned them. But after seeing that cracking job in Pakistan, I think we're better off with them.
Phanatik wrote:
It has been historically proven that low taxes does equal economic growth. anyone that says otherwise is lying, uninformed, or misinformed.
Phanatik wrote:
It has been historically proven that low taxes does equal economic growth. anyone that says otherwise is lying, uninformed, or misinformed.
Or living in Sweden.
I was forced to rather crudely rescale one of these to make it work from 1993 to present GDP Growth in percent US on the left Sweden on the right. Nearly identical to my eye.
Manchu wrote:And how about the death panels? I mean, are you personally satisfied with the service provided by the death panels we've been told go along with nationalized healthcare.
The death panels are grat, but as usual, Fox News is misinformed. They have nothing to do with health care- the death panels are entirely for people turning 30.
Phanatik wrote:
Deficit spending, regardless of how much revenue comes in, will hurt an economy because as the CRA proved, the bill always eventually comes in.
Of course it does, that's the point.
There are no permanent solutions. Pretending there are is naive and ignorant.
Manchu wrote:And how about the death panels? I mean, are you personally satisfied with the service provided by the death panels we've been told go along with nationalized healthcare.
A disingenuous statement like this almost makes one wish that someday Obama is there to hand you a pain pill instead of authorizing that late-in-life procedure you might need, except so many other people would have to suffer for you to learn a lesson.
Phanatik wrote:
It has been historically proven that low taxes does equal economic growth. anyone that says otherwise is lying, uninformed, or misinformed.
Or living in Sweden.
I was forced to rather crudely rescale one of these to make it work from 1993 to present GDP Growth in percent US on the left Sweden on the right. Nearly identical to my eye.
Exactly. That's my point (couldn't tell if you were agreeing with me or not).
Phanatik wrote:A disingenuous statement like this almost makes one wish that someday Obama is there to hand you a pain pill instead of authorizing that late-in-life procedure you might need
Faced with reality, Phanatik can only appeal to an imaginary future world in which those who disagree with him will surely be punished. There is good precedent for this delusion: people have harangued their enemies with images of fire and brimstone for many centuries. The materialist rationalist, however, cannot stoop to mythological thinking. For him, only science fiction will do.
It's almost as if no single factor is a reliable and absolute predictor for growth!
I mean, that's as crazy as suggesting a system as complex as a country's economy is composed of multiple variables interacting in a broadly non deterministic fashion, so that any amount of sound and fury about economic policy is almost certainly based on ideology rather than logic.
Thank god no one is suggesting anything like that!
You gotta give Rick credit, he swung at every question asked. It probably damned him overall. As someone who voted for Dubya twice, Mitt is our John Kerry, and much to my father's dismay I'll be putting my check next to Ron Paul. Yes Dad I'm throwing away my vote for idealism, but I live in California so does it even matter? Paul is our Marcus Tullius Cicero, preaching liberty against the growth of government as the 2 cannot coexist.
Thus, After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
-Alexis de Tocqueville
