Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Santorum is now on top of Romney   (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Super Tuesdays, South Carolina primary, ticker symbol, Republican debates, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Massachusetts Governor  
•       •       •

2276 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Feb 2012 at 12:01 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-02-20 10:04:33 AM  
It doesn't matter. Santorum can't win against Obama. Romney can't win against Obama. Huntsman could win against Obama, but he's no longer around.

The only hope the Republicans have is Gingrich, but realistically there really isn't any hope for the Republicans this November.
 
2012-02-20 10:33:45 AM  
Now there's a mental image I did NOT need the first thing on a Monday...
 
2012-02-20 10:44:03 AM  
The fact that a significant portion of America would even consider this guy boggles my mind.

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-02-20 10:46:52 AM  
And just when you think he couldn't get any nuttier, now he's against prenatal screening. Not to hit below the belt or anything, but someone whose wife had a miscarriage and has a daughter with a fatal genetic disorder, I would think, would feel differently.
 
2012-02-20 10:47:50 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: It doesn't matter. Santorum can't win against Obama. Romney can't win against Obama. Huntsman could win against Obama, but he's no longer around.

The only hope the Republicans have is Gingrich, but realistically there really isn't any hope for the Republicans this November.


Two things. If it isn't Romney, I'll abstain from voting, because the Obama alternatives at that point are worse than Obama. Second, do you believe for a second that Huntsman could have survived the same scrutiny given each preceding front runner? There are 3 big problems with Mitt Romney...he has changed his positions, he is like the Republican Obama...centrist, and he is Mormon and Republican. That last shouldn't matter but it does. You know who else is Mormon and Republican? Huntsman. He would have been made fun of for baptising dead people, and all the fun of that too. He would be critiqued for any position out of line with the conservative right...or those on the Democrat side who want him running but don't find him liberal enough.

Huntsman only looks good to Democrats...and then only until the frontrunner damage machine starts working.

Romney is competent, clean and articulate. And from day 1 has been criticized and targets from the left and right. And he's still the guy to beat in the primaries.

In some ways the primaries hurt the Republicans with how petty they've been. In another, they might help. By the time Romney is nominated, everything bad to say about him will have been said and Republicans will no longer care....and Democrats will barely care as they will have their own version of him in Obama. The independents (or whatever you want to call that middle ground) will vote based on two things 1) perception of which one is the most personable, and 2) the economy. If there is war or significant concern internationally, that might add a 3rd. But I doubt it at this point.
 
2012-02-20 10:51:33 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: The fact that a significant portion of America would even consider this guy boggles my mind.

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 160x120]


He seems nice. He seems sincere and genuine, if weird (the baby at home thing). He also seems stupid, bigotted, and out of touch with a society that moved on from Ozzie and Harriet to Ozze and Sharon.

I don't get it. I guess he is the "Not Romney or Gingrich" candidate. If you want conservative but not womanizing.
 
2012-02-20 10:59:59 AM  

I_C_Weener: If you want conservative but not womanizing.


He has other woman problems.
 
2012-02-20 11:00:13 AM  
Just remember, the people voting in the Republican primary are not actually sane.
 
2012-02-20 11:05:05 AM  

Diogenes: And just when you think he couldn't get any nuttier, now he's against prenatal screening. Not to hit below the belt or anything, but someone whose wife had a miscarriage and has a daughter with a fatal genetic disorder, I would think, would feel differently.


But prenatal screening would be be against God's Will. You must understand that God is at heart a practical joker (source), and it was God's intent to make pregnancy kind of like a Jack-in-the-Box. You put the penis in, wait up to nine months and a surprise pops out, YAY!
 
2012-02-20 11:05:26 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: The fact that a significant portion of America would even consider this guy boggles my mind.

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 160x120]


That's because a significant portion of America don't know much about him.
 
2012-02-20 11:05:30 AM  

Diogenes: I_C_Weener: If you want conservative but not womanizing.

He has other woman problems.


I think the other problems are with him, not them. It is one thing to be pro-life. It is another to be anti-woman. And he is clearly a throwback to the "barefoot and pregnant" but no abortions unless it is his wife...kind.
 
2012-02-20 11:14:51 AM  

Code_Archeologist: You put the penis in, wait up to nine months and a surprise pops out, YAY!


*snert*
 
2012-02-20 11:39:51 AM  
SO the GOP is going to run on a "Let's turn America into Iran, but with Jesus" platform.

OK. Good luck with that.
 
2012-02-20 11:52:15 AM  
Can we please please PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASEPLEASE PLEASE PLASE stop talking about the election until august when it will actually matter?

/oh wait, we need ratings

carry on

(yes I realize there's a nomination process, but as a registered independent I do NOT give a shiat)
 
2012-02-20 11:53:58 AM  

Backwards Cornfield Races: Can we please please PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASEPLEASE PLEASE PLASE stop talking about the election until august when it will actually matter?

/oh wait, we need ratings

carry on

(yes I realize there's a nomination process, but as a registered independent I do NOT give a shiat)


This is the real reason we need more Whitney Houstons dead, more wars in the Middle East, more OJ Simpson or Caylee Anthony Trials. This is news for the slow news day. Please, won't someone think of the news junkies and kill a waiter and ex-wife?!!!
 
2012-02-20 11:57:23 AM  

Backwards Cornfield Races: (yes I realize there's a nomination process, but as a registered independent I do NOT give a shiat)


Which is what politicians hope and pray for. That by the time the actual election rolls around, people will have forgotten all the crazy shiat they said and advocated in the primaries because they didn't give a shiat.
 
2012-02-20 12:03:43 PM  
All this doubt about Republicans happening within the primaries. Just imagine what it's going to be like in the general election.
 
2012-02-20 12:04:45 PM  
Santorum makes more sense at the antichrist anyway
 
2012-02-20 12:04:54 PM  
Earlier today Trump threatened to run if Santorum get's the nomination.

I can't imagine what am Obama/Santorum/Trump debate would be like.
 
2012-02-20 12:04:58 PM  

Aarontology: SO the GOP is going to run on a "Let's turn America into Iran, but with Jesus" platform.

OK. Good luck with that.


That's been their platform since the mid 70s. And it's been somewhat successful.
 
2012-02-20 12:05:03 PM  
This is just foreplay. You know Romney will finish on top of santorum
 
2012-02-20 12:05:18 PM  
Wow, I never dreamed that Obama's reelection would be so easy.
 
2012-02-20 12:05:25 PM  

Diogenes: I_C_Weener: If you want conservative but not womanizing.

He has other woman problems.


like hating them?
 
2012-02-20 12:06:14 PM  

Aarontology: Backwards Cornfield Races: (yes I realize there's a nomination process, but as a registered independent I do NOT give a shiat)

Which is what politicians hope and pray for. That by the time the actual election rolls around, people will have forgotten all the crazy shiat they said and advocated in the primaries because they didn't give a shiat.


Which is why I'm voting for someone that is honest about their insanity. Vermin Supreme
 
2012-02-20 12:06:37 PM  

Aarontology: Backwards Cornfield Races: (yes I realize there's a nomination process, but as a registered independent I do NOT give a shiat)

Which is what politicians hope and pray for. That by the time the actual election rolls around, people will have forgotten all the crazy shiat they said and advocated in the primaries because they didn't give a shiat.


I'd be willing to bet money that Santorum continues saying this same "gays are evil, sex without the sole intent of procreation is evil, women can't make their own decisions" shiat right up until and past the election. The only question is how much "Muslims are evil" he puts into the mix.
 
2012-02-20 12:07:54 PM  
I called the Palin fiasco far in advance, and nailed every bit of their strategy.

So now I will predict their strategy on this one.

The GOP is ranking up the discord around the party to get the constituency frustrated at the lack of cohesive planning. Then at the right moment this year, probably Summer, they will pull a surprise candidate out of the hat that will "bridge the gaps," unite the party, resulting in a "fired up" constituency. They'll have all the marketing lined up before hand, and launch the entire thing in a media blitz akin to the Palin announcement (anyone else find it odd that the Palin "smootchy" bumper stickers were out the very next day?). The Santorum push is meant to keep the fringe 'nutters in the voting pool.

And it will be a close election...had they not done this with Palin, it wouldn't have been even as close as it was. The GOP knows exactly what they are doing.
 
2012-02-20 12:08:03 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: It doesn't matter. Santorum can't win against Obama. Romney can't win against Obama. Huntsman could win against Obama, but he's no longer around.

The only hope the Republicans have is Gingrich, but realistically there really isn't any hope for the Republicans this November.


I cringe every time I hear someone say this. It's hard enough getting Democrats off their asses to vote -the LAST thing we need is for them to be told that Obama is a shoo-in for reelection.
 
2012-02-20 12:08:35 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Earlier today Trump threatened to run if Santorum get's the nomination.

I can't imagine what am Obama/Santorum/Trump debate would be like.


It would end with Obama having an outline of his hand on his face and a sprained if not broken wrist. Possibly a concussion.
 
2012-02-20 12:09:45 PM  
cdn.styleforum.net
 
2012-02-20 12:10:02 PM  
Of course, the cream always rises to the top.
 
2012-02-20 12:10:53 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-02-20 12:11:33 PM  
I know Romney is a slimy prick who seems like he was built from a do-it-yourself politician kit.

But Christ, it scares me that a significant portion of the population looks at a man as genuinely stupid as Santorum and thinks, I'd go with this guy.
 
2012-02-20 12:11:44 PM  

DarnoKonrad: That's been their platform since the mid 70s. And it's been somewhat successful.


Yeah, but now they are doubling down on it. It's 2012 and these morons are waging a war against birth control of all things, and making this a social issues campaign. After spending three years screaming about the economy.

Backwards Cornfield Races: Which is why I'm voting for someone that is honest about their insanity. Vermin Supreme


He should tap the Rent Is Too Damn High guy as VP

Karac: I'd be willing to bet money that Santorum continues saying this same "gays are evil, sex without the sole intent of procreation is evil, women can't make their own decisions" shiat right up until and past the election. The only question is how much "Muslims are evil" he puts into the mix.


I wouldn't take that bet. It's pretty much guaranteed he'll do that. His speech at the convention (whether as nominee or supporter) should be terrifying/hilarious.
 
2012-02-20 12:12:42 PM  

Backwards Cornfield Races: Can we please please PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASEPLEASE PLEASE PLASE stop talking about the election until august when it will actually matter?

/oh wait, we need ratings

carry on

(yes I realize there's a nomination process, but as a registered independent I do NOT give a shiat)


You sound like you only watch the last five minutes of basketball games as well.
 
2012-02-20 12:12:50 PM  

DarnoKonrad: [i.imgur.com image 640x355]


Santorum reminds me of Joel Osteen.

/not a compliment.
 
2012-02-20 12:13:41 PM  

Macinfarker: I called the Palin fiasco far in advance, and nailed every bit of their strategy.

So now I will predict their strategy on this one.

The GOP is ranking up the discord around the party to get the constituency frustrated at the lack of cohesive planning. Then at the right moment this year, probably Summer, they will pull a surprise candidate out of the hat that will "bridge the gaps," unite the party, resulting in a "fired up" constituency. They'll have all the marketing lined up before hand, and launch the entire thing in a media blitz akin to the Palin announcement (anyone else find it odd that the Palin "smootchy" bumper stickers were out the very next day?). The Santorum push is meant to keep the fringe 'nutters in the voting pool.

And it will be a close election...had they not done this with Palin, it wouldn't have been even as close as it was. The GOP knows exactly what they are doing.


No, they don't. If they were this well-oiled machine, Palin would have vanished after 2008. The Republicans would have the Senate by a hair, and we wouldn't have seen the mess that jacked up our credit rating. The Republicans have been faltering for four years at this point, and that's being generous and ignoring Dubya like they've already done.

The people running have been a joke and their selected person has been another failure in a long line of them. They haven't planned anything. They've just trying to regain their footing after farking up in a spectacular way.

Anybody introduced now is going to be at a loss to win anything. Anybody introduced a few months before the election will be demolished.
 
2012-02-20 12:13:52 PM  

Diogenes: And just when you think he couldn't get any nuttier, now he's against prenatal screening. Not to hit below the belt or anything, but someone whose wife had a miscarriage and has a daughter with a fatal genetic disorder, I would think, would feel differently.


I think thats entirely relevant. Its sad when public official can hide behind their family and still pass laws that affect their lives. It reminds me of when Kerry called out Cheney on his lesbian daughter. Sure thats not polite. But supporting laws like DOMA when you have a homosexual child is farked up.
 
2012-02-20 12:13:53 PM  

rcantley: I know Romney is a slimy prick who seems like he was built from a do-it-yourself politician kit.

But Christ, it scares me that a significant portion of the population looks at a man as genuinely stupid as Santorum and thinks, I'd go with this guy.


If it weren't for Citizens United, idiots like Santorum would have been out of the process after the first caucus.

Thanks, Supreme Court!
 
2012-02-20 12:14:09 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Earlier today Trump threatened to run if Santorum get's the nomination.

I can't imagine what am Obama/Santorum/Trump debate would be like.


I don't know but I would make popcorn for that one!
 
2012-02-20 12:14:10 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: The fact that a significant portion of America would even consider this guy boggles my mind.

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 160x120]


Next time the Southern States start threatening to secede, I vote we just let them go.
 
2012-02-20 12:14:54 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: Backwards Cornfield Races: Can we please please PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASEPLEASE PLEASE PLASE stop talking about the election until august when it will actually matter?

/oh wait, we need ratings

carry on

(yes I realize there's a nomination process, but as a registered independent I do NOT give a shiat)

You sound like you only watch the last five minutes of basketball games as well.


nba or college?
 
2012-02-20 12:15:37 PM  

Diogenes: And just when you think he couldn't get any nuttier, now he's against prenatal screening. Not to hit below the belt or anything, but someone whose wife had a miscarriage and has a daughter with a fatal genetic disorder, I would think, would feel differently.


By his own logic, he should have let his wife die, not have a "miscarriage."
 
2012-02-20 12:16:35 PM  

I_C_Weener: In some ways the primaries hurt the Republicans with how petty they've been. In another, they might help. By the time Romney is nominated, everything bad to say about him will have been said and Republicans will no longer care....and Democrats will barely care as they will have their own version of him in Obama. The independents (or whatever you want to call that middle ground) will vote based on two things 1) perception of which one is the most personable, and 2) the economy. If there is war or significant concern internationally, that might add a 3rd. But I doubt it at this point.


Well by that criteria Romney is doomed to lose then (that and any other criteria I can think of). Leaving aside the fact that the economy is improving enough to favor Obama, Romney couldn't win a personality contest with a mannequin. Romney has the same chance of appearing more personable than Obama that Stephanie Meyer does of writing good fiction.
 
2012-02-20 12:16:54 PM  
There is no way nominating Santorum could backfire on the GOP.
 
2012-02-20 12:18:15 PM  

Code_Archeologist: Just remember, the people voting in the Republican primary are not actually sane.


That should actually read, "Michigan Republican Primary Voters", a significantly lower representation of the state's voters, given the voter turnout for primaries.

Not sure I'm going to participate in Operation Hilarity after all. Part of me does not want all the media scrutiny and the country thinking we're a bunch of inbred religious zealots, which we are not. The other part is afraid of what will happen if the GOP indeed brokers a nomination. Jeb Bush? Chris Christie? Sarah Palin? Yeah, yeah...sure they say they won't run. For now.

I think it might just be bad juju to vote for someone you absolutely do not want in office.
 
2012-02-20 12:19:07 PM  

Macinfarker: I called the Palin fiasco far in advance, and nailed every bit of their strategy.

So now I will predict their strategy on this one.

The GOP is ranking up the discord around the party to get the constituency frustrated at the lack of cohesive planning. Then at the right moment this year, probably Summer, they will pull a surprise candidate out of the hat that will "bridge the gaps," unite the party, resulting in a "fired up" constituency. They'll have all the marketing lined up before hand, and launch the entire thing in a media blitz akin to the Palin announcement (anyone else find it odd that the Palin "smootchy" bumper stickers were out the very next day?). The Santorum push is meant to keep the fringe 'nutters in the voting pool.

And it will be a close election...had they not done this with Palin, it wouldn't have been even as close as it was. The GOP knows exactly what they are doing.


Yeah, I don't think so. According to RCP, Obama is up on Satorum by 7, and up on Romney by 6 (new window), meanwhile, Obama's number are still going up (new window). For some reason I don't think finding a "middle" candidate between Santorum and Romney will help too much, and throwing a new candidate into the ring at that late a date means he won't be inoculated against any line of attack.
 
2012-02-20 12:19:23 PM  

Macinfarker: I called the Palin fiasco far in advance, and nailed every bit of their strategy.

So now I will predict their strategy on this one.

The GOP is ranking up the discord around the party to get the constituency frustrated at the lack of cohesive planning. Then at the right moment this year, probably Summer, they will pull a surprise candidate out of the hat that will "bridge the gaps," unite the party, resulting in a "fired up" constituency. They'll have all the marketing lined up before hand, and launch the entire thing in a media blitz akin to the Palin announcement (anyone else find it odd that the Palin "smootchy" bumper stickers were out the very next day?). The Santorum push is meant to keep the fringe 'nutters in the voting pool.

And it will be a close election...had they not done this with Palin, it wouldn't have been even as close as it was. The GOP knows exactly what they are doing.


For some odd reason after reading your post, I feel the need to respond in Grand Moff Tarkin's voice.
 
2012-02-20 12:20:06 PM  

Diogenes: And just when you think he couldn't get any nuttier, now he's against prenatal screening. Not to hit below the belt or anything, but someone whose wife had a miscarriage and has a daughter with a fatal genetic disorder, I would think, would feel differently.


makes sense. only a murderin' whore would want to know if her fetus had a horribly painful or incompatible-with-life disease.

/this guy is SUCH a jackass. no, Rick, you can't have/head a theocracy. not yours.
 
2012-02-20 12:21:40 PM  
This wouldn't have been considered a bold statement several weeks ago, but I'll say it now despite the polling: Romney will win Michigan.

Santorum's already had several unforced errors since last week, and he'll keep on keeping on until Michigan votes. He'll scare enough people into holding their noses voting for Romney.
 
2012-02-20 12:22:10 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: The fact that a significant portion of America would even consider this guy boggles my mind.

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 160x120]


According to the polls I'm seeing, Santorum would get approximately 40% of the popular vote (new window) vs. Obama. This would still amount to an electoral massacre, but the fact that 40% of the people would vote for a guy who is against birth control, equates homosexuality with bestiality, and wants to "get science out of politics" doesn't fill me with rosy optimism about the future of our species.
 
2012-02-20 12:22:11 PM  

heinekenftw: [cdn.styleforum.net image 600x750]


Thanks, I needed that. I was unknowingly furrowing my brow so hard I was getting a headache.

No sane person should want to have anything to do with Santorum.
 
2012-02-20 12:22:21 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: Backwards Cornfield Races: Can we please please PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASEPLEASE PLEASE PLASE stop talking about the election until august when it will actually matter?

/oh wait, we need ratings

carry on

(yes I realize there's a nomination process, but as a registered independent I do NOT give a shiat)

You sound like you only watch the last five minutes of basketball games as well.


You make it sound like either of these things are bad things.
 
2012-02-20 12:25:41 PM  

I_C_Weener: Romney is competent, clean and articulate. And from day 1 has been criticized and targets from the left and right. And he's still the guy to beat in the primaries.


If the Romney running today were the Romney who governed MA, I'd give him more respect. Instead, he's spent the entire election cycle hopping from one foot to the other while occasionally dragging out some tired schtick he thinks plays well to the rubes. (C'mon Mitt--one more round of American the Beautiful! The crowd loves it). He seems anything BUT competent when he keeps contradicting his record. Had he just stuck to his guns, he'd probably be having a better run. Yeah, he'd scare off the Teabaggers, but they're not the majority, anyway. He'd have swayed the disaffected fiscal conservatives & the independents and probably even beaten Obama. But now, even if he gets the nomination, all he'll do is fail spectacularly.

After that, it's anyone's guess whether the GOP will FINALLY learn their lesson and actually take a look at the antiquated, moronic, hate-spewing group they've become.
 
2012-02-20 12:26:58 PM  

lennavan: Three Crooked Squirrels: The fact that a significant portion of America would even consider this guy boggles my mind.

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 160x120]

Next time the Southern States start threatening to secede, I vote we just let them go.


as long as there's a sponsorship/refugee program for people like me who are reasonably intelligent but circumstances prevent being able to escape the Republic of Gilead Jesustan.

/although NC can be pretty reasonable... sometimes
//raised in SC, so I'm lucky I can read
 
2012-02-20 12:29:44 PM  
The GOP Convention this year is going to bring some epic and fatal drinking games.
 
2012-02-20 12:30:30 PM  

sdd2000: Philip Francis Queeg: Earlier today Trump threatened to run if Santorum get's the nomination.

I can't imagine what am Obama/Santorum/Trump debate would be like.

I don't know but I would make popcorn for that one!


www.milehimama.com

We're gonna need a bigger bowl.
 
2012-02-20 12:31:49 PM  
Once again, my prediction: Huntsman/Guiliani ticket in a brokered convention.

As for Santorum, given the choice, a lot of repubs would rather be right than in power. That frees them of any responsibility if things go wrong, so running Santorum, even though he is a sure loser in the general election, means that a lot of people get to maintain their credentials as purists and morally superior. These are the same people who wanted Detroit to go bankrupt purely on principle, who wanted the banks to go under purely on principle, who want people to lose their homes purely on principle and be denied unemployment benefits purely on principle. It's a win/win situation--you know responsible people are not going to let you get your way, destroying the country in the process, and you get to complain about how bad things are because your radical policiesa weren't put into practice. The only thing I don't understand is why these folks aren't supporting Paul instead of Santorum. He is the natural candidate of the batshiat crazy contingent.
 
2012-02-20 12:32:36 PM  

Aarontology: SO the GOP is going to run on a "Let's turn America into Iran, but with Jesus" platform.

OK. Good luck with that.


Jesus is actually pretty big with those guys. But I see your point, and encourage the republicans to keep this shiat up until November.
 
2012-02-20 12:32:45 PM  

Im_Gumby: For some odd reason after reading your post, I feel the need to respond in Grand Moff Tarkin's voice.


You had better be right about this Obama. I'm taking a big chance letting them run Santorum.
 
2012-02-20 12:33:03 PM  

clambam: Once again, my prediction: Huntsman/Guiliani ticket in a brokered convention.


The far right would go nuclear and splinter.
 
2012-02-20 12:33:16 PM  

Macinfarker: The Santorum push is meant to keep the fringe 'nutters in the voting pool.


Wading into the santorum pool

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-20 12:34:28 PM  

Notabunny: Macinfarker: The Santorum push is meant to keep the fringe 'nutters in the voting pool.

Wading into the santorum pool

[img.photobucket.com image 640x480]


pool lacks froth
 
2012-02-20 12:35:19 PM  

I_C_Weener: AverageAmericanGuy: It doesn't matter. Santorum can't win against Obama. Romney can't win against Obama. Huntsman could win against Obama, but he's no longer around.

The only hope the Republicans have is Gingrich, but realistically there really isn't any hope for the Republicans this November.

Two things. If it isn't Romney, I'll abstain from voting, because the Obama alternatives at that point are worse than Obama.


I don't get that thinking. Shouldn't you actually for the best available, even if it's holding your nose? Do you really want to be responsible if your "worse than X" actually comes true because you didn't try to prevent that from happening? That's some real Peter Parker-level thinking there! Or it's only important to pick the best of the guys with a particular letter next to his name? What a way to be an independent thinker! What a way to be a part of process! VERY American Exceptionalismly, because you ONLY SUPPORT YOUR GAY! and noone else! I DON'T NEED A PURPLE FINGER!
 
2012-02-20 12:35:46 PM  

Macinfarker: The GOP is ranking up the discord around the party to get the constituency frustrated at the lack of cohesive planning. Then at the right moment this year, probably Summer, they will pull a surprise candidate out of the hat that will "bridge the gaps," unite the party, resulting in a "fired up" constituency. They'll have all the marketing lined up before hand, and launch the entire thing in a media blitz akin to the Palin announcement (anyone else find it odd that the Palin "smootchy" bumper stickers were out the very next day?). The Santorum push is meant to keep the fringe 'nutters in the voting pool.


I know no one is really voting FOR any of the candidates, but I can't imagine any good coming from nominating/appointing a candidate that's not currently in the running. I would actually bet the results would be worse than if any of the current people were running.
 
2012-02-20 12:35:52 PM  

SixPaperJoint: sdd2000: Philip Francis Queeg: Earlier today Trump threatened to run if Santorum get's the nomination.

I can't imagine what am Obama/Santorum/Trump debate would be like.

I don't know but I would make popcorn for that one!

[www.milehimama.com image 348x208]

We're gonna need a bigger bowl.


Golf clap- Bravo sir
 
2012-02-20 12:36:28 PM  

clambam: Once again, my prediction: Huntsman/Guiliani ticket in a brokered convention.


No way. Candidates come with volunteers and staff, and you can't just alienate them by saying "thanks for all your hard work, but we're picking two guys who didn't even run."
 
2012-02-20 12:37:07 PM  

Im_Gumby: Macinfarker: I called the Palin fiasco far in advance, and nailed every bit of their strategy.

So now I will predict their strategy on this one.

The GOP is ranking up the discord around the party to get the constituency frustrated at the lack of cohesive planning. Then at the right moment this year, probably Summer, they will pull a surprise candidate out of the hat that will "bridge the gaps," unite the party, resulting in a "fired up" constituency. They'll have all the marketing lined up before hand, and launch the entire thing in a media blitz akin to the Palin announcement (anyone else find it odd that the Palin "smootchy" bumper stickers were out the very next day?). The Santorum push is meant to keep the fringe 'nutters in the voting pool.

And it will be a close election...had they not done this with Palin, it wouldn't have been even as close as it was. The GOP knows exactly what they are doing.

For some odd reason after reading your post, I feel the need to respond in Grand Moff Tarkin's voice.


Any attack made by the Democrats against our party would be a useless gesture, no matter what oppo data they have obtained. Santorum is now the ultimate power in the universe! I suggest we use it!
 
2012-02-20 12:39:58 PM  

DarnoKonrad: clambam: Once again, my prediction: Huntsman/Guiliani ticket in a brokered convention.

No way. Candidates come with volunteers and staff, and you can't just alienate them by saying "thanks for all your hard work, but we're picking two guys who didn't even run."


Huntsman DID run.

And The VP nominee often was not a candidate. (See... Well... everyone in the last few elections anyway... Biden, Palen, Cheney, Lieberman, I guess edwards had run.)
 
2012-02-20 12:40:17 PM  

heinekenftw: [cdn.styleforum.net image 600x750]


Much appreciated!
 
2012-02-20 12:40:41 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Earlier today Trump threatened to run if Santorum get's the nomination.

I can't imagine what am Obama/Santorum/Trump debate would be like.


What's black, frothy, and covered in animal hair?
 
2012-02-20 12:41:19 PM  
Well, sure. You didn't think the Christers were going to let the Mormon take the nom without a challenge, did you?
 
2012-02-20 12:41:37 PM  

DarnoKonrad: clambam: Once again, my prediction: Huntsman/Guiliani ticket in a brokered convention.

No way. Candidates come with volunteers and staff, and you can't just alienate them by saying "thanks for all your hard work, but we're picking two guys who didn't even run."


Huntsman did run, which is why I'm putting him at the top of the ticket. But you're right, the repubs would never run on one platform or set of issue, then turn around and do the complete opposite, alienating and screwing over their own people. It's only happened like twenty or thirty times in the last three years. Or as Gingrich would put it: "Shut your whore mouth and do as you're told."
 
2012-02-20 12:42:52 PM  

clambam: Once again, my prediction: Huntsman/Guiliani ticket in a brokered convention.


Such a ticket would be the end of the Republican party, it would be a big FU to social conservatives who would go on and vote third party, breaking up the alliance of interests that allows Republicans to win any races in the first place. The most reasonable thing Republicans can do right now is let Santorum win the nomination this year since they will lose the general election regardless. Then Republicans can come back in 2016 with a more moderate candidate who actually has a chance to becoming president, telling the extremists they had their chance and going to the far right doesn't win elections.

My hope though is that they go with Romney so the Republican party can continue to flounder in irrelevance through 2016 and beyond.
 
2012-02-20 12:43:11 PM  
Republicans just aren't thinking this all the way through. Romeny can easily pick a religious kook for VP to appeal to teabaggers, but there is no one on Earth that Santorum can pick that will make him appealing to independent voters.
 
2012-02-20 12:43:27 PM  

I_C_Weener: Romney is competent, clean and articulate.


I'll coincide "clean" but not the other two. Romney flubs constantly on camera (I like firing people, I don't care about the poor). As for referring to Romney as competent, no. Whoever is running Romney's campaign is obvious very competent but Romney himself is just another rich boy figure head like GW. Most people forget George Romney was a politically connected multimillionaire CEO. On top of all that Romney changes his position constantly.
 
2012-02-20 12:44:08 PM  

clambam: DarnoKonrad: clambam: Once again, my prediction: Huntsman/Guiliani ticket in a brokered convention.

No way. Candidates come with volunteers and staff, and you can't just alienate them by saying "thanks for all your hard work, but we're picking two guys who didn't even run."

Huntsman did run, which is why I'm putting him at the top of the ticket. But you're right, the repubs would never run on one platform or set of issue, then turn around and do the complete opposite, alienating and screwing over their own people. It's only happened like twenty or thirty times in the last three years. Or as Gingrich would put it: "Shut your whore mouth and do as you're told."


Huntsman never got more than 3% in the Gallup tracking. He has no support in the party.
 
2012-02-20 12:44:48 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: clambam: DarnoKonrad: clambam: Once again, my prediction: Huntsman/Guiliani ticket in a brokered convention.

No way. Candidates come with volunteers and staff, and you can't just alienate them by saying "thanks for all your hard work, but we're picking two guys who didn't even run."

Huntsman did run, which is why I'm putting him at the top of the ticket. But you're right, the repubs would never run on one platform or set of issue, then turn around and do the complete opposite, alienating and screwing over their own people. It's only happened like twenty or thirty times in the last three years. Or as Gingrich would put it: "Shut your whore mouth and do as you're told."

Huntsman never got more than 3% in the Gallup tracking. He has no support in the party.


Thats because he was the only one there who wasnt trying to sell a book.
 
2012-02-20 12:45:50 PM  

snowshovel: I_C_Weener: AverageAmericanGuy: It doesn't matter. Santorum can't win against Obama. Romney can't win against Obama. Huntsman could win against Obama, but he's no longer around.

The only hope the Republicans have is Gingrich, but realistically there really isn't any hope for the Republicans this November.

Two things. If it isn't Romney, I'll abstain from voting, because the Obama alternatives at that point are worse than Obama.


I don't get that thinking. Shouldn't you actually for the best available, even if it's holding your nose? Do you really want to be responsible if your "worse than X" actually comes true because you didn't try to prevent that from happening? That's some real Peter Parker-level thinking there! Or it's only important to pick the best of the guys with a particular letter next to his name? What a way to be an independent thinker! What a way to be a part of process! VERY American Exceptionalismly, because you ONLY SUPPORT YOUR GAY! and noone else! I DON'T NEED A PURPLE FINGER!


I don't support Obama. Some things of his I agree with, but I disagree with more than I agree. Can't support a candidate if I don't support enough of his positions.

And yeah, I haven't voted for a Dem for president ever. I probably would have reconsidered my 1996 vote though.

Don't worry, I'm not voting for Lugar either. I'll abstain that time too. I can't support another 6 years for any old Senators, much less ones who instead of listening to their constitutency put them on a junk email list.

Basically, I'm going to have very few national office candidiates I'll vote for this year.
 
2012-02-20 12:47:47 PM  
i373.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-20 12:48:30 PM  

Felgraf: The far right would go nuclear and splinter.


There may be no way to avoid that.
 
2012-02-20 12:51:08 PM  

Gwyrddu: Such a ticket would be the end of the Republican party, it would be a big FU to social conservatives who would go on and vote third party, breaking up the alliance of interests that allows Republicans to win any races in the first place. The most reasonable thing Republicans can do right now is let Santorum win the nomination this year since they will lose the general election regardless. Then Republicans can come back in 2016 with a more moderate candidate who actually has a chance to becoming president, telling the extremists they had their chance and going to the far right doesn't win elections.

My hope though is that they go with Romney so the Republican party can continue to flounder in irrelevance through 2016 and beyond.


Or, they'll conclude that Santorum wasn't a true conservative (damn rhino will be uttered by the same people drooling over him now) and that they need to go further to the right.
 
2012-02-20 12:52:22 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: The fact that a significant portion of America would even consider this guy boggles my mind.

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 160x120]


A lot of them don't know a damned thing about his positions, they just think he seems like a nice guy, the kind of guy you'd like to have as a neighbor. A lot of people barely have functioning brains.
 
2012-02-20 12:54:41 PM  

WhyteRaven74: There may be no way to avoid that.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-02-20 12:54:50 PM  

I_C_Weener: the Obama alternatives at that point are worse than Obama


I predict a slow realization that Obama is actually not that bad, followed by the realization that more liberal policy results in better quality of life, followed by the realization that Democrats are just better for America. 20 years ago, it would have been laughable to think that Republicans would switch sides in droves to support a black President, but that was before Bush got greedy and dumped the contents of the cookie jar out onto the floor for his cronies to consume in record time.

The Right went full-on cartoonish supervillian. Meanwhile, Obama's America didn't result in mass starvation and re-education camps. Even the gibbering idiot Republican base can't ignore it forever: Life is better now than it was when Fartbama N0bongo took office.
 
2012-02-20 12:56:15 PM  

Gwyrddu: Then Republicans can come back in 2016 with a more moderate candidate who actually has a chance to becoming president, telling the extremists they had their chance and going to the far right doesn't win elections.


The moderates aren't directing the party. The nutters have found their voice and they are running to the far right as fast as they can and requiring stricter purity tests with each debate. What's amazing to me is the number of people following them. These people cheered for letting the uninsured die, publically denounce a member of the military that is gay and celebrating Texas having the most executions. Charming folk.

I don't see them swinging back to the middle in 2016 like you do.
 
2012-02-20 12:56:34 PM  

Guntram Shatterhand: No, they don't. If they were this well-oiled machine, Palin would have vanished after 2008. The Republicans would have the Senate by a hair, and we wouldn't have seen the mess that jacked up our credit rating. The Republicans have been faltering for four years at this point, and that's being generous and ignoring Dubya like they've already done.

The people running have been a joke and their selected person has been another failure in a long line of them. They haven't planned anything. They've just trying to regain their footing after farking up in a spectacular way.

Anybody introduced now is going to be at a loss to win anything. Anybody introduced a few months before the election will be demolished.


The GOP did not anticipate Biden as the VP choice in 2008, and their guns were all heavily loaded with anti-Clinton propaganda. They knew that a black Dem candidate with a blue-collar untarnished VP choice would be unbeatable, so in a move of desperation they took on Palin to get the "sex" vote. The blitz worked, and the result was much closer than it would have been otherwise.

As for Palin disappearing, a popular psycho is still a useful psycho, and she's entering the mix here and there as the GOP sees as use for it. She isn't hurting their chances...yet. I agree that the GOP's chances in the next race are slim, and that's why I predicted strategy as I did....the only way to get momentum is to capitalize on the short-term effects of a "promising" candidate. Pour all your resources into it, and hope that the short-term poll gains are enough to tip the scales.

nmrsnr: Yeah, I don't think so. According to RCP, Obama is up on Satorum by 7, and up on Romney by 6 (new window), meanwhile, Obama's number are still going up (new window).


Precisely. This is exactly what happened in the 2008 race...the GOP knew they couldn't beat Obama, so they changed up their strategy to capitalize on Palin's sex appeal, novelty and charisma. See more below about the vetting.

For some reason I don't think finding a "middle" candidate between Santorum and Romney will help too much, and throwing a new candidate into the ring at that late a date means he won't be inoculated against any line of attack.

True, which is why the Palin choice failed...they didn't vet her and failed to foresee that she might be a nitwit. However, Palin was a last minute decision, based entirely on Obama's not choosing Hillary as his running mate. Now that there are (seemingly) no variables on the Dem side, I predict the GOP have their actual candidate kept secret, well vetted, and properly marketable to spring just at the right time.

Notabunny: Wading into the santorum pool


Couldn't agree more. While I'd love to see the GOP fade away, and certainly the constituency that follows Santorum, the bottom line is that those with the most money understand marketing strategy better than everyone else, and simply are not stupid enough to keep Santorum for the election. He's useful for the fringe vote, and nothing more.

FeedTheCollapse: I know no one is really voting FOR any of the candidates, but I can't imagine any good coming from nominating/appointing a candidate that's not currently in the running. I would actually bet the results would be worse than if any of the current people were running.


See McCain/Palin 2008. McCain was nowhere close in the polls until Palin came along, and the GOP voters got fired up. Voters have a tremendously low attention span, and even worse memory, so that strategy is bound to work more than once.

Edsel: Any attack made by the Democrats against our party would be a useless gesture, no matter what oppo data they have obtained. Santorum is now the ultimate power in the universe! I suggest we use it!


Don't be too proud of the philosophical terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a black President is insignificant, next to the power of legalized marijuana.
 
2012-02-20 12:56:43 PM  
I base my prediction on the following:

1. The candidate will not be Romney, Santorum, Gingrich or Paul.
2. The candidate must be electable, meaning moderate enough to appeal to Independents but conservative enough to win the grudging support of the party's core extremists.
3. The candidates must each have records of competent governance (actually, this leaves out the entire list of current candidates).
4. The candidates must be from different parts of the country.
5. The candidate cannot be a complete unknown.
6. The candidate will not be black or burdened with a vagina, because repubs are at heart misogynistic racists.

= Huntsman/Guiliani
 
2012-02-20 12:56:44 PM  

malaktaus: Three Crooked Squirrels: The fact that a significant portion of America would even consider this guy boggles my mind.

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 160x120]

A lot of them don't know a damned thing about his positions, they just think he seems like a nice guy, the kind of guy you'd like to have as a neighbor. A lot of people barely have functioning brains.


Actually, I think they have a pretty good idea of what his positions are. They WANT a "true conservative" as their candidate, and out of all the people in the race he fits that mold best right now.
 
2012-02-20 12:57:11 PM  
GOP Primary Calculator

Link (new window)

Mittens needs to win in Ohio a lot more than he needs to win in Michigan.
 
2012-02-20 12:58:30 PM  
Macinfarker
I called the Palin fiasco far in advance, and nailed every bit of their strategy.

So now I will predict their strategy on this one.

The GOP is ranking up the discord around the party to get the constituency frustrated at the lack of cohesive planning. Then at the right moment this year, probably Summer


Summer is way too late. Primaries don't work that way anymore. Delegates are pledged per the primary voting. The party machine won't just make them all switch their votes from who their state primary selected.

I think we will see a Romney/Santorum ticket.

I_C_Weener
There are 3 big problems with Mitt Romney...he has changed his positions, he is like the Republican Obama...centrist, and he is Mormon and Republican.

Centrist? But the right wing talking heads and politicians keep telling me that Obama is the most liberal lib who ever libbed! Would they lie to me?

Three Crooked Squirrels
The fact that a significant portion of America would even consider this guy boggles my mind.


THIS! Why must people in this country keep proving, year after year, that they are even stupider than I thought?

Fark it. Go ahead and do it, bigoted, fundie morons. Nominate Santorum. DO IT! DO IT NOW! I think it's very unlikely he will win, but let's go ahead and have this showdown. It's right leaning moderate portrayed as super lib on one side vs. batshiat crazy, bigoted, far right wing, woman hating fundamentalist on the other. Elect the latter and at least those of us who are still sane will know how seriously we need to consider getting the fark out of the backwards ass country as it gets flushed down the toilet.
 
2012-02-20 12:58:59 PM  
Posted this in the wrong thread....

Perhaps this is the cumulative effect of ignorance and "all politicians are liars" mentality wherein the voters believe they really are choosing a "frothy discharge" over actual human candidates. And I can't blame them for it.
 
2012-02-20 01:00:03 PM  

Felgraf: 2.bp.blogspot.com


Ditto. I can't see any scenario involving a brokered convention that doesn't fracture the party. And even absent a brokered convention, the party may still fracture.
 
2012-02-20 01:00:18 PM  

clambam: I base my prediction on the following:

1. The candidate will not be Romney, Santorum, Gingrich or Paul.
2. The candidate must be electable, meaning moderate enough to appeal to Independents but conservative enough to win the grudging support of the party's core extremists.
3. The candidates must each have records of competent governance (actually, this leaves out the entire list of current candidates).
4. The candidates must be from different parts of the country.
5. The candidate cannot be a complete unknown.
6. The candidate will not be black or burdened with a vagina, because repubs are at heart misogynistic racists.

= Huntsman/Guiliani


It could technically happen, although they'd get slaughtered in the general election because it's just too farking late for a candidate to jump in the race now, with no time to build a campaign structure, raise funds, etc.

But Huntsman and Giuliani are widely viewed as RINOs. No way would they wind up with the nomination. Much more likely it'd be somebody like Daniels, Christie, Rubio, etc.
 
2012-02-20 01:00:47 PM  

clambam: I base my prediction on the following:

1. The candidate will not be Romney, Santorum, Gingrich or Paul.
2. The candidate must be electable, meaning moderate enough to appeal to Independents but conservative enough to win the grudging support of the party's core extremists.
3. The candidates must each have records of competent governance (actually, this leaves out the entire list of current candidates).
4. The candidates must be from different parts of the country.
5. The candidate cannot be a complete unknown.
6. The candidate will not be black or burdened with a vagina, because repubs are at heart misogynistic racists.

= Huntsman/Guiliani


You are on dope if you think the Republican Party is going to have a guy like Huntsman leading them this time around. Sorry. The GOP has gone off the rails and they're all about the crazy right now.
 
2012-02-20 01:02:09 PM  
Oh yeah, Santorum is all over Romney these days:
lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-02-20 01:03:41 PM  

clambam: I base my prediction on the following:

1. The candidate will not be Romney, Santorum, Gingrich or Paul.
2. The candidate must be electable, meaning moderate enough to appeal to Independents but conservative enough to win the grudging support of the party's core extremists.
3. The candidates must each have records of competent governance (actually, this leaves out the entire list of current candidates).
4. The candidates must be from different parts of the country.
5. The candidate cannot be a complete unknown.
6. The candidate will not be black or burdened with a vagina, because repubs are at heart misogynistic racists.

= Huntsman/Guiliani


Huntsman has generated support from no more than 3% of Republicans in Gallup's national GOP tracking since Dec. 1. His Positive Intensity Scores among Republicans were generally the worst of any candidate measured, often in negative territory, meaning that more Republicans felt strongly unfavorably toward him than felt strongly favorably. Only 21% of Republicans in our recent early January poll said Huntsman would be an acceptable nominee, the lowest of all candidates tested.
(new window)
 
2012-02-20 01:04:32 PM  
far and wide, the corporate money has been behind Romney.

even though santorum is supported by a creepy rich dude, his rise is giving a nice "fark you" to Wall Street.

i don't support santorum's policies at all, but it is nice to see david beat up goliath once in a while.
 
2012-02-20 01:06:15 PM  

patrick767: Centrist? But the right wing talking heads and politicians keep telling me that Obama is the most liberal lib who ever libbed! Would they lie to me?


Averaging (in other words...guesswork) his positions, and he averages out as centrist. So would Romney. Though in both cases, the more extreme positions would definitely lean toward their base. For Romney that may be gay marriage. For Obama it was and is "socialism" or what is claimed to be that...maybe in a way it is in that Obama is taking a bigger hand than ever in controlling and guiding the economy.

But neither one will change the Bush precedents on tax breaks, detention, military adventurism (because terrorists), DHS running their TSA hands in our pants (because terrorists), etc...

Which, when you look at it makes Bush look better by comparison. In the history books he will be the one that the next few presidents followed in word and deed.
 
2012-02-20 01:11:28 PM  

mccallcl: I predict a slow realization that Obama is actually not that bad, followed by the realization that more liberal policy results in better quality of life, followed by the realization that Democrats are just better for America. 20 years ago, it would have been laughable to think that Republicans would switch sides in droves to support a black President, but that was before Bush got greedy and dumped the contents of the cookie jar out onto the floor for his cronies to consume in record time.


I'd be happy if people realized that Obama is "slightly left of center", and not a "liberal".
 
2012-02-20 01:13:20 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: The fact that a significant portion of America would even consider this guy boggles my mind.


Desperate men in desperate times do desperate things.

/Republicans: This year, they're desperate.
//Paid for by the "Anyone Except for Mitt Romney Coalition."
 
2012-02-20 01:15:21 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: The moderates aren't directing the party. The nutters have found their voice and they are running to the far right as fast as they can and requiring stricter purity tests with each debate. What's amazing to me is the number of people following them. These people cheered for letting the uninsured die, publically denounce a member of the military that is gay and celebrating Texas having the most executions. Charming folk.

I don't see them swinging back to the middle in 2016 like you do.


Well the Republican party is doomed as a national party then. You can't continue to win elections based on appealing to the xenophobia and misogyny of white protestant males when they represent an even smaller percentage of voters every year, at least on the national level.
 
2012-02-20 01:16:54 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Three Crooked Squirrels: The fact that a significant portion of America would even consider this guy boggles my mind.

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 160x120]

That's because a significant portion of America don't know much about him.


Maybe they should look it up on Google.
 
2012-02-20 01:19:42 PM  

PanicMan: mccallcl: I predict a slow realization that Obama is actually not that bad, followed by the realization that more liberal policy results in better quality of life, followed by the realization that Democrats are just better for America. 20 years ago, it would have been laughable to think that Republicans would switch sides in droves to support a black President, but that was before Bush got greedy and dumped the contents of the cookie jar out onto the floor for his cronies to consume in record time.

I'd be happy if people realized that Obama is "slightly left of center", and not a "liberal".


LOL, no. How about "significantly right of center". He's a traditional conservative. You know, before they farked themselves forever with all the family values bullshiat. Compared to today's conservative, he's a card carrying commie. Compared to someone like Ronald Reagan, he is very similar. Minus the backward social values.
 
2012-02-20 01:20:35 PM  
I_C_Weener
Don't worry, I'm not voting for Lugar either. I'll abstain that time too. I can't support another 6 years for any old Senators, much less ones who instead of listening to their constitutency put them on a junk email list.

The alternative to Lugar is a crazy teabagger.

For Obama it was and is "socialism" or what is claimed to be that...maybe in a way it is in that Obama is taking a bigger hand than ever in controlling and guiding the economy.


Bigger than ever? In what respect? FDR took a much bigger hand in guiding the economy and it was much needed. Obama's initiative's don't come close.

All economies fall somewhere on the line between laissez faire capitalism and 100% state socialism. Obama is only a "socialist" compared to total laissez-faire, fark the middle class, fark the poor and let 'em die in the streets capitalism. He certainly does not push for a socialist system of government.
 
2012-02-20 01:23:10 PM  
Gwyrddu
Well the Republican party is doomed as a national party then. You can't continue to win elections based on appealing to the xenophobia and misogyny of white protestant males when they represent an even smaller percentage of voters every year, at least on the national level.

What they do is use a combination of social wedge issues and lies, lies, and more lies blared through their right wing media outlets to convince low information voters that the GOP cares about someone besides rich old white guys. It's been working fairly well for them.
 
2012-02-20 01:24:54 PM  

malaktaus: Three Crooked Squirrels: The fact that a significant portion of America would even consider this guy boggles my mind.

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 160x120]

A lot of them don't know a damned thing about his positions, they just think he seems like a nice guy, the kind of guy you'd like to have as a neighbor. A lot of people barely have functioning brains.


Yep, a very quiet neighbor, who always kept to himself. You'd be shocked to read in the newspaper about how he brought home a dead baby one day.
 
2012-02-20 01:31:11 PM  
Santorum is now on top of Romney

Huh. I kinda figured he'd be a power bottom.
 
2012-02-20 01:32:03 PM  

joonyer:

LOL, no. How about "significantly right of center". He's a traditional conservative. You know, before they farked themselves forever with all the family values bullshiat. Compared to today's conservative, he's a card carrying commie. Compared to someone like Ronald Reagan, he is very similar. Minus the backward social values.


I guess that really depends on whether you judge him by what he has accomplished which will be strongly effected by what the other two branches of government currently are doing, or what he was actually trying to accomplish, which could be pretty different depending on his willingness to compromise. It also depends on whether you judge him based on American politics, or an international level where he obviously would appear much further to the right.

Anyway, in respect to American politics and with consideration of who is in congress, I'd say Obama is a moderate. Sadly, his views are rarely to the right of most people in America, he knows how much change most people will tolerate and aims for that (and sometimes doesn't even get that done).
 
2012-02-20 01:35:03 PM  
I'd be curious as to what Republican women think about Santorum. Do we have any in here?
 
2012-02-20 01:39:59 PM  

Macinfarker: FeedTheCollapse: I know no one is really voting FOR any of the candidates, but I can't imagine any good coming from nominating/appointing a candidate that's not currently in the running. I would actually bet the results would be worse than if any of the current people were running.

See McCain/Palin 2008. McCain was nowhere close in the polls until Palin came along, and the GOP voters got fired up. Voters have a tremendously low attention span, and even worse memory, so that strategy is bound to work more than once.


McCain/Palin is not really the same thing. People had already voted for McCain in the primaries, he just got a nominee that fired up the base even more. People are floating the idea that nominating someone who ISN'T running would somehow fire up the GOP base. I don't see that happening; quite the opposite, in fact.
 
2012-02-20 01:43:47 PM  

Di Atribe: I'd be curious as to what Republican women think about Santorum. Do we have any in here?


My grandparents are staunch Republicans. I imagine she actually agrees with him. I love my grandparents dearly but they're life GOPers, happy to toe whatever party line they're fed. And in their defense, they're just too old to put the critical thinking in to figure out what's actually going on and what it means.
 
2012-02-20 01:57:22 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: The fact that a significant portion of America would even consider this guy boggles my mind.

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 160x120]


significant is an interesting word.
30% of rep and rep leaning voters.
so ~15% of voters
is that significant? meh
is that large and scary? fark YES

esp since ~100% of the rep and rep leaning voters will vote for the rep candidate no matter WHO it is. ...
the rep voters will stay home and not vote before they would vote for satan, I mean the dems.
 
2012-02-20 01:59:34 PM  
 
2012-02-20 02:01:03 PM  

malaktaus: Three Crooked Squirrels: The fact that a significant portion of America would even consider this guy boggles my mind.

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 160x120]

A lot of them don't know a damned thing about his positions, they just think he seems like a nice guy, the kind of guy you'd like to have as a neighbor. A lot of people barely have functioning brains.



I can't count how many times I hear, "I HATE politics...They're ALL crooks...I'll just be glad when this is all over" when trying to engage in political discourse.

I wonder how glad they'll be when they have to buy black market birth control.
 
2012-02-20 02:02:09 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Huntsman could win against Obama, but he's no longer around.


Huntsman was never more than a homeless man's version of Romney.
 
2012-02-20 02:09:24 PM  

lennavan: My grandparents are staunch Republicans. I imagine she actually agrees with him. I love my grandparents dearly but they're life GOPers, happy to toe whatever party line they're fed. And in their defense, they're just too old to put the critical thinking in to figure out what's actually going on and what it means.


My parents are much the same way. They toe the GOP line because they are religious. However, I can't imagine my mother supporting a man who supports medical policies that would literall kill me. Like, x_x fpppppppppt dead.

In fact, I can't imagine anyone who loves/cares about a woman of child-bearing age supporting Santorum. I have literally NEVER hated anyone that I didn't personally know until he came along. How can he be taken seriously? Are there really that many misogynists & racists out there who see him and think, "Yeah, he believes what I believe?" Or is it that they agree with him on one thing, therefore they convince themselves that they agree with him on everything? The fact that he is the frontrunner is completely outrageous to me.
 
2012-02-20 02:10:22 PM  
I don't care if he'll never win. The sad thing is, a significant portion of our country wants a theocrat to be president.
 
2012-02-20 02:13:11 PM  

namatad: the actual poll, rather than a retarded article about the poll (new window)


Note how Santorum's rise mirrors Gingrich right before he fell out of favor. There's no power to him besides being 'not Romney' and even then that won't be enough for Romney to eventually overcome him. And given Rick's biatchiness on various forms of media, he's probably got a little while before he sinks as well.

InmanRoshi: AverageAmericanGuy: Huntsman could win against Obama, but he's no longer around.

Huntsman was never more than a homeless man's version of Romney.


Huntsman was better off when he was an ambassador. He gave up his cushy job for absolutely nothing.
 
2012-02-20 02:13:35 PM  

KwameKilstrawberry: I can't count how many times I hear, "I HATE politics...They're ALL crooks...I'll just be glad when this is all over" when trying to engage in political discourse.


Seems to me that this is what Republicans say when you challenge them. "I hate them all, but I hate Obama the most." You can't get any debate out of them because once you point out one of their candidates doing something indefensible, they drag this one out.
 
2012-02-20 02:20:52 PM  

Di Atribe: I'd be curious as to what Republican women think about Santorum. Do we have any in here?


My sister-in-law's a Bible-thumping Fundie who voted Santorum in the FL primary. She's likes his deep commitment to family and stance against abortion. She's mum on his birth-control opinions because, although she's against the practice, she feels that's a private decision and gov't shouldn't get involved. However, she'll overlook that flaw in Santorum to make sure nobody murders babies, gays can't get married, and to get prayer back in schools--all like the Founding Fathers wanted.

Then there's the Teabagger friend who says Santorum's an out-of-touch idiot but she's still going to vote for him in the NJ primary. She says she doesn't want another Obama (meaning Romney) in office and won't vote for Newt because he wants to grant amnesty to illegals.

Another friend, a normal Republican, is voting Romney because she thinks Newt's a lying scumbag and Santorum's a lunatic who can only mean disaster for the country. She hates everything that Santorum stands for--his views on women, on religion in politics, gun control. Except the gay marriage thing. He may be right on that one because gays have civil unions and that should be good enough for them.

So, I guess what Republican women say about Santorum depends on their flavor of crazy.
 
2012-02-20 02:25:37 PM  

brigid_fitch: Di Atribe: I'd be curious as to what Republican women think about Santorum. Do we have any in here?

My sister-in-law's a Bible-thumping Fundie who voted Santorum in the FL primary. She's likes his deep commitment to family and stance against abortion. She's mum on his birth-control opinions because, although she's against the practice, she feels that's a private decision and gov't shouldn't get involved. However, she'll overlook that flaw in Santorum to make sure nobody murders babies, gays can't get married, and to get prayer back in schools--all like the Founding Fathers wanted.

Then there's the Teabagger friend who says Santorum's an out-of-touch idiot but she's still going to vote for him in the NJ primary. She says she doesn't want another Obama (meaning Romney) in office and won't vote for Newt because he wants to grant amnesty to illegals.

Another friend, a normal Republican, is voting Romney because she thinks Newt's a lying scumbag and Santorum's a lunatic who can only mean disaster for the country. She hates everything that Santorum stands for--his views on women, on religion in politics, gun control. Except the gay marriage thing. He may be right on that one because gays have civil unions and that should be good enough for them.

So, I guess what Republican women say about Santorum depends on their flavor of crazy.


BTW, I used to be Republican and, if I hadn't switched during the Clinton years, or somehow managed to hang on during the Bush years, AND weathered the McCain/Palin fiasco, this year's GOP contenders would absolutely make me jump ship. I don't understand why so many people are sticking to a party that's gone so far into the derp side.
 
2012-02-20 02:26:10 PM  
Santorum's going down.

all he has to do is keep talking

soon he will be circling the toilet bowl

after activating the flush mechanism all by himself.
 
2012-02-20 02:37:47 PM  

brigid_fitch: I don't understand why so many people are sticking to a party that's gone so far into the derp side.


Well, they are the party of fiscal responsibility.
 
2012-02-20 02:38:56 PM  
I'm starting to thing that Rick Santorum is the Republican equivalent of George McGovern, in that McGovern is what happened when the hard left got control of the nominating process and after that the party elders stepped in and figured out how to avoid a repeat of that disaster. Santorum is what happens when the hard right gets control of the nominating process, he's going to crash and burn, and the party elders are going to use that as an excuse to reign in the right to avoid a repeat.
 
2012-02-20 02:46:17 PM  

Diogenes: And just when you think he couldn't get any nuttier, now he's against prenatal screening. Not to hit below the belt or anything, but someone whose wife had a miscarriage and has a daughter with a fatal genetic disorder, I would think, would feel differently.


"What will Ofwarren give birth to? A baby, as we all hope? Or something else, an Unbaby, with a pinhead or a snout like a dog's, or two bodies, or a hole in its heart or no arms, or webbed hands and feet? There's no telling. They could tell once, with machines, but that is now outlawed. What would be the point of knowing, anyway? You can't have them taken out; whatever it is must be carried to term."

Gwyrddu: Well the Republican party is doomed as a national party then. You can't continue to win elections based on appealing to the xenophobia and misogyny of white protestant males when they represent an even smaller percentage of voters every year, at least on the national level.


Part of me doesn't think they intend to. I've got a crazy feeling that they're planning something...unAmerican that would get them the power they desire. If they country goes to hell as a result of it, so be it.

But then that feeling could be the result of reading Appian and "The Handmaid's Tale."
 
2012-02-20 02:46:29 PM  
this primary reminds me more and more of this (new window)

/"dooooon't sleep in the subwaaay BOOM!
//except this is real life.
 
2012-02-20 02:47:09 PM  

MadeuLaTerestrian: this primary reminds me more and more of this (new window)

/"dooooon't sleep in the subwaaay BOOM!
//except this is real life.


and by that idiocy i meant this (new window)
 
2012-02-20 02:48:12 PM  
Fiscally speaking, both Romeny and Santorum are closer to Democrats than Newt or RON PAUL.

social issues and national defense issues are... another issue.
 
2012-02-20 02:52:59 PM  

brigid_fitch: BTW, I used to be Republican and, if I hadn't switched during the Clinton years, or somehow managed to hang on during the Bush years, AND weathered the McCain/Palin fiasco, this year's GOP contenders would absolutely make me jump ship. I don't understand why so many people are sticking to a party that's gone so far into the derp side.


I used to be a Republican, too. I consider myself a moderate now, which means I'm a filthy liberal hippy to my former cohorts. I think the moment I switched was when I realized that if McCain got elected, Sarah Palin would be President. The last thing we needed was that lunatic being one old man's heartbeat away from having the nuke codes. Oh and probably also when I realized that I didn't really believe in half the things the GOP claimed to stand for.

Thanks for sharing those stories. I really am curious as to how Republican women can possibly defend him. I'm fine with people being pro-life (even if I don't fully agree, I can understand where their POV), as long as they're also pro-contraception.
 
2012-02-20 03:02:40 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-02-20 03:06:59 PM  

FeedTheCollapse: [i.imgur.com image 631x682]


Ew! Would not watch.
 
2012-02-20 03:07:01 PM  

Di Atribe: KwameKilstrawberry: I can't count how many times I hear, "I HATE politics...They're ALL crooks...I'll just be glad when this is all over" when trying to engage in political discourse.

Seems to me that this is what Republicans say when you challenge them. "I hate them all, but I hate Obama the most." You can't get any debate out of them because once you point out one of their candidates doing something indefensible, they drag this one out.


Or if you really wanna piss them, off - quote Jesus.
 
2012-02-20 03:15:31 PM  

KwameKilstrawberry: Or if you really wanna piss them, off - quote Jesus.


Oh you mean the whole kindness thing? Helping children, the elderly, & the poor? We should let the churches do that. Right after they're done building multi-million dollar churches. Also, could anyone please point me to the scripture that says I can't use contraception? Also, if we ban contraception, all of those condom factory & condom store employees will be out of work. JOBS, PEOPLE.
 
2012-02-20 03:18:50 PM  

lennavan: Di Atribe: I'd be curious as to what Republican women think about Santorum. Do we have any in here?

My grandparents are staunch Republicans. I imagine she actually agrees with him. I love my grandparents dearly but they're life GOPers, happy to toe whatever party line they're fed. And in their defense, they're just too old to put the critical thinking in to figure out what's actually going on and what it means.


My mom's an 82-year old Tennessee native. She hates to see Obama go on vacation, and once in a while says he hasn't done nuthin', but I always pull her back by explaining what he has done and what these GOP freaks stand for.

See, she's was also a working mom, a single mom and was the first generation on BCPs. We have interracial relationships and gays in our family, which barely ever raised an eyebrow with her. She is pro-choice and doesn't know why the hell they keep yammering about social issues when after 60 years of working, her Medicare and SSI keep getting held over her head.

/When I introduced her to Fark, the first article she just had to read was about Adam Lambert joining the Queen tour.
 
2012-02-20 03:26:59 PM  
Di Atribe
Are there really that many misogynists & racists out there who see him and think, "Yeah, he believes what I believe?"

Signs point to yes.

rynthetyn
I'm starting to thing that Rick Santorum is the Republican equivalent of George McGovern, in that McGovern is what happened when the hard left got control of the nominating process and after that the party elders stepped in and figured out how to avoid a repeat of that disaster. Santorum is what happens when the hard right gets control of the nominating process, he's going to crash and burn, and the party elders are going to use that as an excuse to reign in the right to avoid a repeat.

Bull. Portraying McGovern as hard left was Republican propaganda. In reality it means pretty much claiming that being antiwar meant he was "hard left". He was, of course, exactly right about the war. Instead we lingered in Vietnam, losing tens of thousands of lives and helping kill millions of Vietnamese, until 1975.

The democratic "party elders" were morons in the Nixon years. In '68 they went with Humphrey, a political animal with no principles who was entirely beholden to the party machine run by Daley, Meany, and others. He didn't even compete in the 15 states that actually held primaries and only got 2% of the vote there. This party machine, and specifically Daley, are the scum who unleashed the abusive Chicago PD to beat the shiat out of antiwar protesters who tried in vain to represent an actual liberal position. Nevertheless, Nixon was so pathetic that Humphrey managed to give him a run for it.

In '72 there were more primary states. Humphrey was still the favorite of the party machine, but they failed to win this time around because the redesigned nomination process reduced their power relative to the power of primary voters. Even though McGovern's general election campaign turned into a fiasco, in part because pissy party power brokers refused to financially support him and certainly in large part due to the Eagleton mess, at least the campaign broke the corrupt party machine power of reprehensible shiatbags like Daley and Meany.
 
2012-02-20 03:28:35 PM  

Di Atribe: KwameKilstrawberry: Or if you really wanna piss them, off - quote Jesus.

Oh you mean the whole kindness thing? Helping children, the elderly, & the poor? We should let the churches do that. Right after they're done building multi-million dollar churches. Also, could anyone please point me to the scripture that says I can't use contraception? Also, if we ban contraception, all of those condom factory & condom store employees will be out of work. JOBS, PEOPLE.


Oh, I should have clarified that...Yes, I try to quote New Testament Jesus. Not Prosperity Jesus, Common Sense Jesus, or Cute Jesus.

/Franco Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazereth" was the hottest Jesus of them all!
 
2012-02-20 03:28:51 PM  
Romney: To the Moneymobile!

He's going to buy this nomination come hell or high water.
 
2012-02-20 03:32:06 PM  
rynthetyn
I'm starting to thing that Rick Santorum is the Republican equivalent of George McGovern, in that McGovern is what happened when the hard left got control of the nominating process and after that the party elders stepped in and figured out how to avoid a repeat of that disaster.

One more point... party elders had jack all to do with Carter's nomination in '76. They didn't step in and fix things after the McGovern disaster. There were even more primaries and an almost entirely unknown candidate named Jimmy Carter took advantage of it.

/enough history... I got bored...
 
2012-02-20 03:42:41 PM  

culebra: Romney: To the Moneymobile!

He's going to buy this nomination come hell or high water.


You sound like you'd rather have Santorum. Sweet, sweet, syrupy Santorum.
 
2012-02-20 03:56:46 PM  
Di Atribe: In fact, I can't imagine anyone who loves/cares about a woman of child-bearing age supporting Santorum.


This needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

Hell, I can't form no more babby, but I've got two daughters, goddamn it. The younger one lives with her boyfriend and is starting to think a few years ahead about having a family. I'd like her to be able to plan that decision to the month, like I did when I decided to have kids.

The older is bisexual, athiest (joke's on her - she's been baptized!), had a minor offense in her teen years, does landscaping (strong like bull!) in the summer and has an herbalist boyfriend 30 years older (a very good and gentle man). Neither she nor her boyfriend conform to the standards of society (she once got stopped by the police for hula hooping in public as she walked down the street. A concerned citizen thought she may have escaped from a unit somewhere) yet they are both completely harmless, generous of spirit, very involved in community outreach here in the very worst parts of Detroit, even though the only resources they have is their time, desire and skills, and would like nothing more than to live off the grid.

You can probably see where I'm going with this:

In Santorum's America, my daughter would be burned as a heretic.

/now if I could only get the dumbshiat to vote
 
2012-02-20 03:57:32 PM  
img2.timeinc.net

Miss me yet?
 
2012-02-20 03:59:22 PM  

rcantley: I know Romney is a slimy prick who seems like he was built from a do-it-yourself politician kit.

But Christ, it scares me that a significant portion of the population looks at a man as genuinely stupid as Santorum and thinks, I'd go with this guy.


I can't think of anything other than Obama hate that drives these people. I've asked so many people over the last 3 years what, in particular, they don't like about him, why they are against his policies, etc. I've yet to hear a coherent argument. It's always "because soshulizm" or "because Jesus" or some equally stupid argument. Sometimes they wrap it up in a couple of near-verbatim Rush and Glenn Beck rants. I wonder what makes Obama different than other Presidents.
 
2012-02-20 04:01:45 PM  

brigid_fitch: My sister-in-law's a Bible-thumping Fundie who voted Santorum in the FL primary. She's likes his deep commitment to family and stance against abortion. She's mum on his birth-control opinions because, although she's against the practice, she feels that's a private decision and gov't shouldn't get involved. However, she'll overlook that flaw in Santorum to make sure nobody murders babies, gays can't get married, and to get prayer back in schools--all like the Founding Fathers wanted.


so she is a complete and total hypocrite who should be shunned by all free thinking humans.
plus does she have 1 child per year married?
does she personally, secretly use BC, including condoms or abstinence?

what kind of terrible xian is she??
sigh
 
2012-02-20 04:05:17 PM  

Macinfarker: I called the Palin fiasco far in advance, and nailed every bit of their strategy.

So now I will predict their strategy on this one.

The GOP is ranking up the discord around the party to get the constituency frustrated at the lack of cohesive planning. Then at the right moment this year, probably Summer, they will pull a surprise candidate out of the hat that will "bridge the gaps," unite the party, resulting in a "fired up" constituency. They'll have all the marketing lined up before hand, and launch the entire thing in a media blitz akin to the Palin announcement (anyone else find it odd that the Palin "smootchy" bumper stickers were out the very next day?). The Santorum push is meant to keep the fringe 'nutters in the voting pool.

And it will be a close election...had they not done this with Palin, it wouldn't have been even as close as it was. The GOP knows exactly what they are doing.


This thread is now bookmarked with a reminder to look back at it in August. I propose a wager, my good fellow - how much are you willing to put on this?
 
2012-02-20 04:08:58 PM  

rynthetyn: I'm starting to thing that Rick Santorum is the Republican equivalent of George McGovern, in that McGovern is what happened when the hard left got control of the nominating process and after that the party elders stepped in and figured out how to avoid a repeat of that disaster. Santorum is what happens when the hard right gets control of the nominating process, he's going to crash and burn, and the party elders are going to use that as an excuse to reign in the right to avoid a repeat.


hehehehehe
dukakis, gore, kerry
we sure did a GREAT JORB of reigning in the tards who got nominated ....

KERRY, with his 3 purple hearts lost to an AWOL coward????
bwhahahahahahahahaha
that is the saddest nomination of all time
 
2012-02-20 04:10:25 PM  

odinsposse: [img2.timeinc.net image 300x400]

Miss me yet?


pawlenty and huntsman ??
 
2012-02-20 04:10:25 PM  
This is good news

/forObama
//for the USA
///for the world
 
2012-02-20 04:13:37 PM  

KwameKilstrawberry: My mom's an 82-year old Tennessee native. She hates to see Obama go on vacation, and once in a while says he hasn't done nuthin', but I always pull her back by explaining what he has done and what these GOP freaks stand for.

See, she's was also a working mom, a single mom and was the first generation on BCPs. We have interracial relationships and gays in our family, which barely ever raised an eyebrow with her. She is pro-choice and doesn't know why the hell they keep yammering about social issues when after 60 years of working, her Medicare and SSI keep getting held over her head.


My entire family is (D), except for my grandparents. There is no possibility of pulling them back to explain what has been done and what has not been done. The point is more, they are Republicans, end of story. The only question is they have to figure out why they are Republicans every couple of years and if that requires making things up or gaps in information, well so be it. The only thing that is sure is that they will vote (R).

For the most part, we ignore politics around the holidays. But 4 years ago we just couldn't help ourselves, so we asked them how they felt about Sarah Palin being VP. Their main reason for voting McCain/Palin anyway? My grandfather was a war vet, and McCain was a war vet so they respected that. So they were willing to put Palin a McCain heartbeat away from nuclear codes because McCain is a vet. Of course you know, they didn't vote Kerry.
 
2012-02-20 04:13:53 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: It doesn't matter. Santorum can't win against Obama. Romney can't win against Obama. Huntsman could win against Obama, but he's no longer around.

The only hope the Republicans have is Gingrich, but realistically there really isn't any hope for the Republicans this November.


and THAT is a wonderful feeling!
 
2012-02-20 04:19:20 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: I can't think of anything other than Obama hate that drives these people. I've asked so many people over the last 3 years what, in particular, they don't like about him, why they are against his policies, etc. I've yet to hear a coherent argument. It's always "because soshulizm" or "because Jesus" or some equally stupid argument. Sometimes they wrap it up in a couple of near-verbatim Rush and Glenn Beck rants. I wonder what makes Obama different than other Presidents.


I have gotten one good argument: the debt has grown under Obama. OK, that's fair. That's something to be upset about. I can understand that. However, he has done a lot of good things. And when they come back with "He's ruining our country," I like to ask people how their lives have taken a turn for the worse since January 2009. Specifically, which Obama policies have made your life bad?

Most common answers: my taxes went up, I don't want to pay for everyone's healthcare, and of course, "socialism." Follow-up question of "What is socialism?" usually leads to, "I don't want to talk about this any more."
 
2012-02-20 04:34:36 PM  

Di Atribe: Don't Troll Me Bro!: I can't think of anything other than Obama hate that drives these people. I've asked so many people over the last 3 years what, in particular, they don't like about him, why they are against his policies, etc. I've yet to hear a coherent argument. It's always "because soshulizm" or "because Jesus" or some equally stupid argument. Sometimes they wrap it up in a couple of near-verbatim Rush and Glenn Beck rants. I wonder what makes Obama different than other Presidents.

I have gotten one good argument: the debt has grown under Obama. OK, that's fair. That's something to be upset about. I can understand that. However, he has done a lot of good things. And when they come back with "He's ruining our country," I like to ask people how their lives have taken a turn for the worse since January 2009. Specifically, which Obama policies have made your life bad?

Most common answers: my taxes went up, I don't want to pay for everyone's healthcare, and of course, "socialism." Follow-up question of "What is socialism?" usually leads to, "I don't want to talk about this any more."


I have more good arguments to dislike Obama. Problem is you never hear about them because we're always too focused on derp.

Gitmo
"kinetic military action" or whatever the hell B.S. he called it
his stance on gay marriage

I've got more issues that are a bit more specific (drone strikes, science funding, taxes cuts for the top income bracket) but you get the idea. There are decent arguments out there, trouble is these are not GOP arguments.
 
2012-02-20 04:52:30 PM  

namatad: brigid_fitch: My sister-in-law's a Bible-thumping Fundie who voted Santorum in the FL primary. She's likes his deep commitment to family and stance against abortion. She's mum on his birth-control opinions because, although she's against the practice, she feels that's a private decision and gov't shouldn't get involved. However, she'll overlook that flaw in Santorum to make sure nobody murders babies, gays can't get married, and to get prayer back in schools--all like the Founding Fathers wanted.

so she is a complete and total hypocrite who should be shunned by all free thinking humans.
plus does she have 1 child per year married?
does she personally, secretly use BC, including condoms or abstinence?

what kind of terrible xian is she??
sigh


I rarely defend my crazy SIL but in this case she's not a hypocrite. She's never used BC but, for whatever reason, she's never been pregnant & they've been married nearly 20 years. And my brother's her 2nd husband. She was married to the first one for 6 years. No kids.

Allowing other women to make choices about birth control is about as free-thinking as she gets, though. The rest of the time, she's trying to ban Halloween, have Creationism taught in schools, and block mosques being built near Tampa/St. Pete.
 
2012-02-20 04:54:49 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: I can't think of anything other than Obama hate that drives these people. I've asked so many people over the last 3 years what, in particular, they don't like about him, why they are against his policies, etc. I've yet to hear a coherent argument. It's always "because soshulizm" or "because Jesus" or some equally stupid argument. Sometimes they wrap it up in a couple of near-verbatim Rush and Glenn Beck rants. I wonder what makes Obama different than other Presidents.


Whatever it is, it's not because he's black. They're not racists. They all have black friends.
 
2012-02-20 05:09:31 PM  

Di Atribe: I have gotten one good argument: the debt has grown under Obama. OK, that's fair...
...Most common answers: my taxes went up, I don't want to pay for everyone's healthcare, and of course, "socialism." Follow-up question of "What is socialism?" usually leads to, "I don't want to talk about this any more."


If there taxes really did go up, we wouldn't have such a serious issue with the growth of government debt. Half the reason the debt has gone up is because of the tax cuts that Obama has implemented, often as compromises with Republicans (most of the rest was due to the recession). There was the Bush tax cut extension, the stimulus bill which was 50% tax cuts, payroll tax cuts.

Being for tax cuts and a balancing the budget are two mutually incongruent positions, especially on this side of the Laffer curve. Even if somehow rationalize paying for tax cuts with cuts in government spending, you still have to figure in the cost of that austerity on the economy as real people with government jobs no longer provide taxes or the services they once did, and private contractors suddenly less have customers for their products.
 
2012-02-20 05:10:59 PM  

Gwyrddu: Being for tax cuts and a balancing the budget are two mutually incongruent positions


Not for the GOP. Tax cuts stimulate spending which stimulates the economy which stimulates growth which stimulates more tax dollars than we spent before. Thus tax cuts generate more tax dollars. That is what they actually believe. No seriously, no joke, that is what they actually say.
 
2012-02-20 05:25:01 PM  

lennavan: Gwyrddu: Being for tax cuts and a balancing the budget are two mutually incongruent positions

Not for the GOP. Tax cuts stimulate spending which stimulates the economy which stimulates growth which stimulates more tax dollars than we spent before. Thus tax cuts generate more tax dollars. That is what they actually believe. No seriously, no joke, that is what they actually say.


It's what they say, yeah, but they don't actually believe it. Look at their efforts to repeal the payroll tax cut. Their "tax cuts stimulate growth" argument disappears when the people getting the cut aren't billionaire corporate sponsors. They'd jack up your and my taxes through the roof if they thought they could get away with it.

The GOP is consistent in only one thing: making life harder for anyone who doesn't line their pockets. They've gone from being uninterested in anything else, to being incapable of doing anything else.
 
2012-02-20 05:26:44 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-02-20 05:28:39 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: It's what they say, yeah, but they don't actually believe it.


Yeah, good point. I don't actually think they could pass a polygraph so saying they actually believe it was wrong. I should have stuck with that's what they actually say.
 
2012-02-20 05:30:57 PM  

lennavan: I have more good arguments to dislike Obama. Problem is you never hear about them because we're always too focused on derp what Fox News tells them to focus on.


I think that might be a little more accurate. I don't agree with everything Obama does, either. That doesn't mean that I hate him. I realize that the President will NEVER do what I want 100% of the time. I also realize that the economy is rebounding, unemployment is down, and everyone gets healthcare.

I think the GOP is trying to make social issues into the big wedge issues because they can't biatch about the economy any more. I'm no political expert, but I think I might be onto something here....
 
2012-02-20 05:48:27 PM  

dumbobruni: GOP Primary Calculator

Link (new window)

Mittens needs to win in Ohio a lot more than he needs to win in Michigan.


Numerically, you are correct. But the reality is, if Mitt loses MI, the Republican party will conclude he is unelectable. Romney is originally from Michigan, and his father was one of the most popular governors in state history. There are landmarks, major buildings, and awards in Michigan that are named "Romney". The place has always been considered a gimme for Romney - the perception is, if he can't win there, he won't win the big show, either. Even a close win will be bad for him, he needs to crush all competition. If Romney loses Michigan, things will go much worse for him very quickly. If that happens, I think there is a 50/50 chance we will see someone other than Romney win the nomination.
 
2012-02-20 05:50:36 PM  

I_C_Weener: Sweet, sweet, syrupy Santorum.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-02-20 06:19:51 PM  
I did the math on that little article....if I'm right...there is a full 12% of Republicans surveyed not backing one of those 4 candidates...........

that seems like kind of a big deal.....
 
2012-02-20 06:46:07 PM  
Two things. First:

clambam: 2. The candidate must be electable, meaning moderate enough to appeal to Independents but conservative enough to win the grudging support of the party's core extremists.


This person does not exist. That is, in fact, the root of the GOP's current dilemma.

Second, the outcome of this election can be pretty neatly summed up in a square box. The republicans will nominate either a fire-breathing conservative true believer, like Newt or Rick, or they will not (i.e. it'll be a moderate or someone seen as a RINO, like Christie, Romney, Huntsman, or Daniels). Their nominee will win, or they will not. This gives us four possible outcomes:

1) Nominate moderate, win general: social conservatives told to get back in their box and stay there, as the Tea Party has outlived its usefulness. If they don't, party civil war erupts. If they do, Tea Party disappears coontil our next Democratic president).

2) Nominate moderate, lose general: teabagger base explodes. Party schisms the morning after election day. Blood in the streets at the next CPAC, wholesale shattering of Republican party as conservatives believe that moderates (the hated GOP-E) have sold them down the river.

3) Nominate extremist, lose general: teabagger base blames betrayal by GOP-E, as in their internal narrative a True Conservative candidate would crush Obama. Party schisms. Candidate is immediately recast as insufficiently conservative. Party leaders cut off tea party support as they are seen as politically toxic, costing GOP white house in 2012.

4) Nominate extremist, win general: last vestiges of sanity flee GOP. Conservatives take it over entirely. Good news for Dems in 2016 and beyond, although bad news is we won't make it to there.

From a liberal standpoint, the outcomes, ranked in descending order of desirability, are 2, 3, 1, 4. Fortunately, this is also in descending order of likelihood.

Will be interesting to watch.
 
2012-02-20 07:27:46 PM  
Santorum:
"I accept the fact that the president's a Christian," Santorum told CBS host Bob Schieffer on Sunday. "I just said when you have world view that elevates the Earth above man and says that we can't take those resources because we're going to harm the Earth - like things that are not scientifically proven like the politicization of the whole global warming debate."

"What they have done? And I referred to it the other day and I got criticized by some of our, well, less-than-erudite members of the national press corps who have a difficulty understanding when you refer to someone's ideology to the point where they elevate Earth, and they say that, well, men and humanity is just of a variety of different species on the Earth and should be treated no differently."

Also Santorum:

"Whereas, we all know that man has a responsibility of stewards of the Earth, that we are good stewards and we have a responsibility to be good stewards. Why? Because unlike the Earth, we're intelligent and we can actually manage things."

total self-contradiction for the win ricky
 
2012-02-20 07:40:57 PM  
LOL. I predicted the religious people in the GOP (and they'd more than likely be the same in the Democratic party) will NEVER allow a Mormon become their party's nominee. I would almost guarantee it. Almost that is, because nothing is sure in politics, including Obama winning.
 
2012-02-20 10:14:28 PM  

Outrageous Muff: There is no way nominating Santorum could backfire on the GOP.


Oh silly you, if the GOP gets Santorum, it could only be the result of "backfiring."

Don't Troll Me Bro!: rcantley: I know Romney is a slimy prick who seems like he was built from a do-it-yourself politician kit.

But Christ, it scares me that a significant portion of the population looks at a man as genuinely stupid as Santorum and thinks, I'd go with this guy.

I can't think of anything other than Obama hate that drives these people. I've asked so many people over the last 3 years what, in particular, they don't like about him, why they are against his policies, etc. I've yet to hear a coherent argument. It's always "because soshulizm" or "because Jesus" or some equally stupid argument. Sometimes they wrap it up in a couple of near-verbatim Rush and Glenn Beck rants. I wonder what makes Obama different than other Presidents.


To teabagger types, words don't have definitions, they only have connotations. Which is why libs rage at things like "atheist muslium communist" because obviously it's stupid to try and apply three mutually exclusive adjectives to the same thing, while the far right-wingers only see 3 words from the bag labelled "things faux news uses to press my emotional 'angry' button" which of course means that whatever thing "atheist muslium communist" appears near must be really, really bad. All of which means that when you wonder aloud about what the hell idea they're trying to convey by using these words in this order, you're tying to deduce logically where no logic exists.

They're authoritarian followers and their authority told them to hate Obama - the words mean nothing. Yes there is definitely a subset who hate him on racial grounds, but they're a minority. Those who say they only hate his policies are mostly telling the truth - except "his policies" doesn't mean Obama's actual policies, but it just another prearranged phrase from the "angry button" bag.
 
2012-02-21 01:39:54 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: LOL. I predicted the religious people in the GOP (and they'd more than likely be the same in the Democratic party) will NEVER allow a Mormon become their party's nominee. I would almost guarantee it. Almost that is, because nothing is sure in politics, including Obama winning.


Santorum's turn as not-Romney is not nearly as newsworthy as people make it out to be. We've seen this before with Bachmann, and Gingrich, and Perry, and Cain, and Gingrich again. The GOP does not want Romney, it knows it can't win with Romney, but they never had any other options. The fact that Santorum is this week's "let's pretend Romney isn't the guy this week" means nothing.

The money chose Romney, and it's going to be Romney. It can't be any other way, save for a last-minute panic during a brokered convention, which is also possible. But nobody peaking right now is going to be able to defeat the GOP's least likeable, second-place candidate. If anybody is going to scoop Romney, it's going to be someone who hasn't been dragged through the mud of this torturous primary the GOP inflicted upon itself. Palin is watching closely for her chance to swing in on a chandelier and save the day.
 
2012-02-21 02:23:25 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Palin is watching closely for her chance to swing in on a chandelier and save the day.


So, do you think the big money would choose Palin?
 
2012-02-21 08:14:06 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Bigdogdaddy: LOL. I predicted the religious people in the GOP (and they'd more than likely be the same in the Democratic party) will NEVER allow a Mormon become their party's nominee. I would almost guarantee it. Almost that is, because nothing is sure in politics, including Obama winning.

Santorum's turn as not-Romney is not nearly as newsworthy as people make it out to be. We've seen this before with Bachmann, and Gingrich, and Perry, and Cain, and Gingrich again. The GOP does not want Romney, it knows it can't win with Romney, but they never had any other options. The fact that Santorum is this week's "let's pretend Romney isn't the guy this week" means nothing.

The money chose Romney, and it's going to be Romney. It can't be any other way, save for a last-minute panic during a brokered convention, which is also possible. But nobody peaking right now is going to be able to defeat the GOP's least likeable, second-place candidate. If anybody is going to scoop Romney, it's going to be someone who hasn't been dragged through the mud of this torturous primary the GOP inflicted upon itself. Palin is watching closely for her chance to swing in on a chandelier and save the day.


I agree. Romney is the one who has been chosen, and all this talk of Michigan being his possible Waterloo is silly. As a Michigan resident, nobody gives a flying shiat about Romney's importance in the state. It's just another goalpost set up for the social conservatives to have hope that maybe their magical savior will show up and save them and their vision of the party.

Furthermore, nobody is going to swoop in and get the nomination. There's six months left. Given the Republican vetting process, anybody who shows up now is going to be slammed so hard that they won't even have a chance to compete.

And Santorum is a few days from topping out. If Romney wins Michigan, Santorum is pretty much toast.
 
Displayed 169 of 169 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report