February 10, 2012

Severely hollow conservatism?

Romney at the at the Conservative Political Action Conference:
"I know conservatism because I have lived conservatism... I was a severely conservative Republican governor... I fought against long odds in a deep blue state....

"Leadership as a chief executive isn’t about getting a bill out of subcommittee or giving a speech. It’s about setting clear goals and overcoming constant adversity...."
Santorum says:
"We will no longer abandon and apologize for the principles that made this country great for a hollow victory in November....

"Why would an undecided voter vote for a moderate candidate who the party isn’t excited about?..."

154 comments:

shiloh said...

Paraphrasing ~ A conservative, moderate, liberal walk into a bar and the Bartender says, Hi mittens!

Meade said...

"Why would an undecided voter vote for a moderate candidate who the party isn’t excited about?..."

Obama?

chickenlittle said...

Severely hollow = stark hohl.

German is so gloomy.

Bender said...

You know, I didn't believe Romney at all before when he said that he was a "conservative."

But now that he has declared that he was "severely conservative" I believe it.

See, if you just insist that something is true enough times, the most falacious things can become true.

edutcher said...

I'll take Milton as a Conservative before Santorum.

And, yes, Meade nailed it. Maybe too early to call a thread-winner, but we'll monitor the situation.

Thorley Winston said...

"Why would an undecided voter vote for a moderate candidate who the party isn’t excited about?"


Because for a lot of voters the ability to actually do the job is more important than the ability to fire up the base of their party with a speech. The last three years shows the wisdom of that and whoever the Republicans pick as the nominee is going to need to make that case to the undecided voters that they’re better able to do the job and not just able to deliver a better speech than the guy they’re trying to replace.

hawkeyedjb said...

What label shall we use for socially conservative spendthrifts like Rick Santorum? GW Bush Republican?

Mr. Santorum is one of those candidates who would lead me to sit home on election day, or ignore the presidential slot on the ballot. Mitt Romney may be moderate, RINO, whatever, but he's not stupid and has actually been responsible for making decisions. I can't imagine the country electing two senators in a row to the presidency. They are people who, by the nature of their job, spend a great deal of time avoiding responsibility.

Amartel said...

"Why would an undecided voter vote for a moderate candidate who the party isn’t excited about?..."

Because there's no one else left in the race.* They're all moderately big government guys in some way. At this point the decision is who is best positioned to beat Obama.



*The race for the Republican nomination, not for Prom King. Ron Paul. I'm looking at you.

Thorley Winston said...

What label shall we use for socially conservative spendthrifts like Rick Santorum? GW Bush Republican?
Other than social issues, I don’t see much where Santorum can legitimately claim to be more conservative than any of the other candidates in the race (except for Paul on foreign policy). On spending and growing government, he’s pretty clearly to the left of the remaining GOP contenders but would still be an improvement over Obama.

I’ll vote for him if he’s the nominee but I don’t think he’s best choice.

shiloh said...

"Because there's no one else left in the race."

lol now that's s thread winner! :D

rcocean said...

Seriously, does it really matter? How do Rick and Mitt differ on any thing that matters?

Its all just sound and fury signifying nothing. Besides Moderates and the Establishment are united behind Mitt, conservatives are divided between Paul, RS, and Newt.

Game Romney.

Shawn L. said...

"...I fought against long odds in a deep blue state....

"Leadership as a chief executive isn’t about getting a bill out of subcommittee or giving a speech. It’s about setting clear goals and overcoming constant adversity…."

Thanks Mitt, for making the argument for Gary Johnson!

And speaking of long odds in a blue state, he even ran for reelection, and won. Unlike a certain governor from Massachusetts who was afraid of losing.

MadisonMan said...

I can't imagine the country electing two senators in a row to the presidency. They are people who, by the nature of their job, spend a great deal of time avoiding responsibility.

This.

And every time a little voice tells me Maybe Santorum wouldn't be so bad, two words pop up: Terri Schiavo. Talk about intrusive Government!

chickenlittle said...

So, would a Romney/Santorum ticket make everybody feel more gruntled?

MadisonMan said...

So, would a Romney/Santorum ticket make everybody feel more gruntled?

What does Romney gain by putting Santorum on the ticket? As far as I can tell, nothing. Santorum wouldn't bring in PA -- he lost his re-election there by 19 points!

Romney choosing Santorum as VP would make me question Romney's decision-making abilities.

bagoh20 said...

Obama was the most liberal Senator when he was there, and he's the most liberal President in recent history. He's not a moderate, just not completely crazy like the far left.

edutcher said...

chickenlittle said...

So, would a Romney/Santorum ticket make everybody feel more gruntled

I was looking forward to Romney/Brewer myself.

AJ Lynch said...

Santorum is no more conservative than Romney. In fact, I bet Santorum will be up our collective asses even more than Obama.

chickenlittle said...

Why are people who supported Obama in 2008 and will probably vote for him again so interested in who the Republicans choose?

Seriously, I have NEVER seen so many libs get so bent out of shape since Palin hit the stage.

I'm kinda looking at you Mad Man.

AJ Lynch said...

CL:

Libs are scared to death because an Obama loss indicates he failed as president. Two libs I work with can't stop talking about the Repub race.

shiloh said...

"Why are people who supported Obama in 2008 and will probably vote for him again so interested in who the Republicans choose?"

hmm, maybe because Obama is running unopposed. Just a thought. :-P

And I'm not looking at you, clittle. :)

MadisonMan said...

will probably vote for him again

Oh yeah, 'cause I'm so happy with the direction the country is taking.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Writ Small said...

Santorum doesn't want a hollow victory.

Jam-packed defeat, then?

chickenlittle said...

Libs are scared to death because an Obama loss indicates he failed as president.

@AJ: I'd add that the Dems really haven't groomed or recruited any successors either, at least not as many rising stars as the Republicans have. Maybe that scares them too.

MadisonMan said...

Maybe that scares them too.

As if Clinton or Obama were groomed.

The path to the Presidency is much different for the different parties. Republicans nominate someone who ran last time and came up short in the Primaries (W excluded -- but he's a RINO, right?). Democrats nominate the latest shout, a virtual unknown from 4 years ago.

That's how it seems to me, at least.

deborah said...

Just the right female veep might seal the deal for Romney. Kind of no-nonsense, but womanly with a good sense of humor. Able to get off a good zing without coming across as a shrew...

Meade said...

deborah said...
"Just the right female veep might seal the deal for Romney. Kind of no-nonsense, but womanly with a good sense of humor. Able to get off a good zing without coming across as a shrew..."

Sorry but I think we've already established that Freeman Hunt will not be available until her last kid hits college.

Bender said...

Mitt Romney may be moderate, RINO, whatever
____________

But Romney just said that he was "severely conservative."

So, who's lying? Are you the liar, Hawkeye, or is Romney the liar?

garage mahal said...

So, would a Romney/Santorum ticket make everybody feel more gruntled?

When you put those two full names together you get: Matrimony Scrotum Tinker. Or, if you prefer: Matrimony Tricks Mounter. My favorite for Mitt Romney is: Metro Minty!

deborah said...

"As if Clinton or Obama were groomed."

I still imagine Bill calling to Hillary in the next room, 'Hey, baby, how 'bout I run for president?'

I think Obama was a complete twist of fate, not supposed to be anything other than a practice run.

Lem said...

I keep visualising a tree.. and how the democrats want to hug/save a hollow one..

edutcher said...

chickenlittle said...

Why are people who supported Obama in 2008 and will probably vote for him again so interested in who the Republicans choose?

A competitive, competent candidate will be the end of GodZero, who seems about ready to take the Democrat Party as a whole with him to Valhalla - or someplace a lot lower.

If Milton gets the nod, Zero is in big trouble because, side by side, Milton looks so much better (academic transcripts, resume, etc.), especially since things ain't lookin' too rosy in the near term.

@AJ: I'd add that the Dems really haven't groomed or recruited any successors either, at least not as many rising stars as the Republicans have. Maybe that scares them too.

The '10 elections decimated the Demo field, while the '06 and '08 losses seemed to have cleared the Republican field of some dead wood while making way for a lot of go-getters - Walker, Kasich, Martinez, West, Scott, Haley, etc.

As always, the Republican bench is very deep.

I ♥ Willard said...

"I know conservatism because I have lived conservatism... I was a severely conservative Republican governor"

Willard is so adorable when he says such silly things!

SteveR said...

OK Rick (Mark Levin, Rush, etc etc) we know the consevatives don't like Romney. How's that worked out since 1988?

Excitment isn't needed, just look around.

I ♥ Willard said...

As always, the Republican bench is very deep.

As proven by the outstanding group of presidential candidates the GOP is fielding in this primary season!

edutcher said...

Meade said...

"Just the right female veep might seal the deal for Romney. Kind of no-nonsense, but womanly with a good sense of humor. Able to get off a good zing without coming across as a shrew..."

Sorry but I think we've already established that Freeman Hunt will not be available until her last kid hits college.


Definitely wins the thread.

edutcher said...

I ♥ Willard said...

As always, the Republican bench is very deep.

As proven by the outstanding group of presidential candidates the GOP is fielding in this primary season!


Deeper than the Democrats' anyway. As this week has once again proved.

But since ♥ can't read, I'll note that I mentioned the '06 and '08 elections cleared out a lot of possible contenders.

Then there's also the Lefty slime machine.

Jason said...

Everyone can say what they want - each GOP candidate has warts that will make you hold your nose when you vote. But pretty much everyone that wants to see Obama out of office next January will be pulling the lever for whomever is listed next to the (R) on the ballot. Thats because any of them are better than the idiot we currently have has president.

shiloh said...

I ♥ Willard

Indeed, the Rep bench is soooo staunch, none of the "supposed" strong candidates wanted to run 'cause they couldn't defeat Obama, or weren't ready ;) or just flat out lazy like Christie, Pawlenty, Daniels etc.

As Jay utters ad nauseam ~ Hysterical!

deborah said...

lol Meade, too true!

I ♥ Willard said...

Well, it's hard to imagine a more outstanding group of candidates than Romney, Cain, Paul, Bachmann, Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, Huntsman, Pawlenty, Roemer, Miller, Karger, Lane, Martin, McMillan, Snyder & Wuensche, McCotter.

Congratulations GOP! What an amazing group of distinguished candidates we've assembled this year!

Jason said...

Congratulations GOP! What an amazing group of distinguished candidates we've assembled this year!

Thats because Obama is going to be difficult to beat. Even with everything going on thats bad in this country, Obama is a wonderful campaigner. In general, incumbents are almost always the favorites in elections.

People like Daniels, Christie, Paul Ryan, Rubio, etc would rather run for an open presidency where there is no incumbent. And since most politicians only get one true shot to run for president, they have to pick the perfect time. All of the "good" GOP candidates listed above are young enough where they can run at a later date.

AJ Lynch said...

I'd vote early & often for Freeman Hunt.

edutcher said...

In my list, I did leave out Christie (mea culpa) who, as he himself notes, has only served as Governor of NJ for a year.

While that still gives him a more accomplished resume than GodZero, no one with a brain* would call him ready to run.

I ♥ Willard said...

Well, it's hard to imagine a more outstanding group of candidates than Romney, Cain, Paul, Bachmann, Gingrich, Perry, Santorum, Huntsman, Pawlenty, Roemer, Miller, Karger, Lane, Martin, McMillan, Snyder & Wuensche, McCotter.

In comparison to GodZero, who has managed the hitherto unimaginable feat of uniting religious groups of all denominations against him?

*Ann Coulter has a brain, to be sure, but she also has a serious case of the political hots for Christie and is thus blind to reality.

I ♥ Willard said...

It's good to know that Sarah Palin is "on the bench" in case the GOP needs yet another outstanding candidate.

I ♥ Willard said...

In comparison to GodZero, who has managed the hitherto unimaginable feat of uniting religious groups of all denominations against him?

I did not know this. Please supply a link so I can read more about "religious groups of all denominations against [Obama]." Thanks!

chickenlittle said...

I ♥ Willard said...
It's good to know that Sarah Palin is "on the bench" in case the GOP needs yet another outstanding candidate.

Agree. I'm looking forward to her remarks at the CPAC.

chickenlittle said...

I did not know this. Please supply a link so I can read more about "religious groups of all denominations against [Obama]." Thanks!

That's history not yet written. But I tend to think edutcher's correct. Obama is probably even pissing off his own church leaders.

yashu said...

Santorum is no more conservative (fiscally and in terms of big government) than Romney. I would argue that he is considerably less conservative. With none of Romney's executive or private sector experience. He has as much relevant experience for the Presidency as Obama in 2008.

But he's the kind of social conservative who has a history (evidenced by plenty of eyebrow-raising quotes) of treating *sodomy*-- not gay marriage, or gays in the military, or some other item of the political gay agenda, but *sodomy*-- as an important national political issue.

So this is a (presumably) straight man who's spent much of his political career-- and many of his public statements-- fixated on the topic of buttsex (and whatever else falls into the "sodomy" category; I haven't kept up with the word's meaning since the time of Dante).

A Santorum candidacy would make the 2012 election turn on the issue of (supposed) GOP homophobia. Instead of, oh I don't know, the economy.

"Supposed", because it's unfair to accuse conservatives of homophobia just because they object to e.g. gay marriage. But when the GOP presidential candidate has a history of publicly inveighing against sodomy? The accusers would have a point.

Vote GOP: We're against sex (except for the strictly straight married procreative missionary variety)! Now that's a winner.

Funny thing is, even if someone *is* homophobic, I can imagine them being put off by Santorum, for talking so much about something they'd rather not think about.

Cedarford said...

"We will no longer abandon and apologize for the principles that made this country great for a hollow victory in November...."

Yes you will, once the country tells you that only 20% of America is true conservative, and only 5% embrace complete fiscal and social values "conservative purity".
Once you realize that most of the Tea Party and libertarians are FISCAL CONSERVATIVES - but all over the map on (1)anti-abortion politics, (2)Anti-contraception politics, (3)the war with gays, (4)Neocon wars of adventure & nation-building.
Fail to heed that and go down in flames like Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Barry Goldwater, and Santorums historic 18 point loss in his reelection campaign.
Note that the most respected and successful conservatives compromise - Reagan, Dole, Eisenhower, Dirksen, Tom Coburn - because that is the nature of a 2-Party system.

"Why would an undecided voter vote for a moderate candidate who the party isn’t excited about?..."

Because the undecided voter in the center is not some religious Fundie obsessed with gays taking over, that worships the hero police and entrepreneurs, and aches over their spread-out target maps for Syria, Somalia, Iran...as the next great war.

The average undecided voter is:

In the middle class. Doesn't want the Fed Government running their lives from either excessive regulation or Federal intrusion to promote the RTL agenda to save the fetuses of raped women or having a delegation of priests and Federal law enforcement agents blocking the cessation of excessive end of life care for thousands to Terri Schiavo-like rutabagas.
They are Catholic, they are former Reagan Democrats that went Reagan-Clinton-BushII-Obama that have to be won over, they are working hispanics that want jobs and not theology from DC. They are lower middle class concerned about themselves and the country going bankrupt - not about trillion dollar lunar colonies.

The average undecided voter is not in the ranks of blacks that will crawl over broken glass to re-elect Obama no matter what, or evangelicals and the ex-Democrat white Southerners that will crawl over broken glass to oust Obama no matter who his challenger is.

Blacks and Fundies are lost causes for either side to try and sway. The people in the middle want jobs, financial stability, no new wars, reasonably priced energy, and someone that will go to DC and cut the Fed Government down to size. Not expand the Fed government to either add more entitlements or to enforce social conservatism.

yashu said...

The whole conceit that Santorum is a paragon of conservatism is just predicated on the fact that he's not Romney.

Same thing happened with Newt, when he was the ascendant not-Romney.

The logic goes something like: Romney is the GOP "establishment" candidate; the anti-Romney is the anti-establishment candidate, to be anti-establishment is to be a true conservative.

Therefore, Santorum (or Gingrich) are true conservatives. Flawless logic.

gadfly said...

Laura Ingraham quote:

“Pragmatism over principle is what Mitt Romney hopes will win him the nomination,” Ingraham said. “Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, they believe that true conservatism and electability go hand in hand.” She added, “I'm not taking sides.

Later she said, “Don't you love when people come to CPAC who have no real connection to conservatives? I'm not referring to Governor Romney.”

edutcher said...

chickenlittle said...

I did not know this. Please supply a link so I can read more about "religious groups of all denominations against [Obama]." Thanks!

That's history not yet written. But I tend to think edutcher's correct. Obama is probably even pissing off his own church leaders.


The Catholic bishops are supported by the Eastern Orthodox bishops, the Southern Baptist Convention, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and the National Association of Evangelicals.

Jews from the Orthodox Union and Agudath Israel have also voiced solidarity.

Then there's the little fact that Catholics from across the spectrum seem to be united on this one.

garage mahal said...

But I tend to think edutcher's correct

If you were given the freedom to dream up - irregardless of facts, history, or trends - the absolute best case scenario facing Republicans, and the absolute worst for Democrats, that's edutcher in every post.

bgates said...

Terri Schiavo. Talk about intrusive Government!

For those who don't remember, Terri Schiavo was the virtually brain dead woman who was removed from life support against her parents' wishes so her "husband" could marry the woman he was living with. Attempts by various Republican elected officials to keep doctors from making Schiavo starve to death appalled both those who lust for the death of Catholics and those who think the government can do virtually anything to anyone involved in any aspect of health care except keeping doctors from making patients starve to death.

I ♥ Willard said...

That's history not yet written.

Ok, so no links then. Once again it's proof by precognition. Very convincing!

Andy R. said...

"… a “severely conservative Republican governor.” The awkwardness of that phrase is Romney’s whole candidacy in a nutshell. The word “severely” is almost always used colloquially in a pejorative or clinical sense (“severely unhappy,” “severely handicapped”), yet he’s using it here in a boastful way, as if to say that he can be as strident and unreasonable as he thinks the crowd needs him to be to give them comfort on his ideological bona fides as nominee. I go back and forth between being annoyed that a guy as intelligent as he is can’t even fake his identification with the right more effectively and feeling sympathy for him that he can’t connect with his audience on a gut level. "
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/10/romney-at-cpac-my-record-is-severely-conservative/

Mittens wants nothing more than to be President for the sake of being President.

yashu said...

Anyway. I think I should try to maintain an attitude of stoic detachment toward the GOP nomination and 2012 election. It's not in my hands, beyond my vote (and that won't count for anything, given where I'm at-- but I'll still vote).

Better for my blood pressure to observe the goings-on with detached bemusement-- like watching a reality show. More like I imagine Althouse to follow politics.

After all, the GOP primaries so far do remind me of a reality competition show like Survivor. The unexpected twists, the strange alliances, the backstabbing, the methods by which weaker candidates can outlast stronger ones and make it to the end. And in the end, the stronger candidate is not guaranteed to win the votes. Resentment and revenge can anoint a winner who was lucky enough to stay out of the most heated battles-- under the radar, out of the fray.

chickenlittle said...

@Garage, I'm shocked SHOCKED to see you even write a comment without relating it somehow to your hobby horse--bringing down Scott Walker.

Megakudos!

edutcher said...

garage mahal said...

But I tend to think edutcher's correct

If you were given the freedom to dream up - irregardless of facts, history, or trends - the absolute best case scenario facing Republicans, and the absolute worst for Democrats, that's edutcher in every post.


As I've said before, facts are a bitch and I go by the facts.

garage, sad to say, seems to be projecting.

I empathize.

Watching the political equivalent of the Battle of Midway when your guy is acting the part of Chuichi Nagumo can't be fun.

WV "flinche" from the French, meaning to watch another war go down the drain.

chickenlittle said...

@I ♥ Willard:

Obama conceded didn't he? It was politically dumb not to. Of course he had to try to put it over. He had to show those h8ers his cajones!

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Jason said,

"But pretty much everyone that wants to see Obama out of office next January will be pulling the lever for whomever is listed next to the (R) on the ballot."

That is such a pipedream. I for one would probably vote for Romney but no way would I vote for Santorum. The last thing I want is a big government social conservative.

If Santorum is the Republican choice I will vote for Obama and hope there is a Republican congress. Or I might vote for that Libertarian guy.

wv -- supro -- I'm supro disappointed in the Republican field

I ♥ Willard said...

As I've said before, facts are a bitch and I go by the facts.

But when I asked you to please supply a link so I can read more about your claim that "religious groups of all denominations [are] against [Obama]," you admitted you didn't have any facts to support your claim.

So when you say you "go by the facts," do you actually mean you "bypass" the facts on your way to forming an opinion?

garage mahal said...

So now we have accommodated the Catholic bishops on contraceptives, next up, unemployment benefits. Right?

On behalf of the Catholic bishops, I urge you to extend emergency unemployment insurance in order that jobless workers and their families, who have suffered greatly in this economic downturn, can have a basic level of financial security as they seek stable, full-time employment. Furthermore, I wish to express deep concern with and strong opposition to proposals to alter the Child Tax Credit to now exclude children of hard working immigrant families. [...] Link

And after that, we'll tackle collective bargaining rights!

The diocesan statement says that, while unions are not perfect, "it is equally a mistake to marginalize or dismiss unions as impediments to economic growth. As Pope John Paul II wrote in 1981, "[a] union remains a constructive factor of social order and solidarity, and it is impossible to ignore it."

According to the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, considered the infallible bedrock of the Catholic Church's 2,000 years of teachings, "The principle of 'solidarity,' also articulated in the terms "friendship" or "social charity" is a direct demand of human and Christian brotherhood." It further states, "Solidarity is manifested in the first place by the distribution of goods and remuneration for work."

Not only must workers be allowed to form unions, but they also have the right to strike, says the church.


Whoa!

Palladian said...

"I think Obama was a complete twist of fate, not supposed to be anything other than a practice run."

Blame it on a simple twist of fate.

cubanbob said...

MadisonMan said...
I can't imagine the country electing two senators in a row to the presidency. They are people who, by the nature of their job, spend a great deal of time avoiding responsibility.

This.

And every time a little voice tells me Maybe Santorum wouldn't be so bad, two words pop up: Terri Schiavo. Talk about intrusive Government!

2/10/12 4:38 PM

Yes it's a terrible thing when elected officials deprive a man the right to finish killing off his wife to collect what is left of an insurance settlement and enjoy the money with his new wife. If you are going to be against Santorum at least find a legitimate reason.

deborah said...

Great article by a disenchanted Obama supporter who tries to persuade avid Obama supporters of their error. The upshot being nothing important will be debated by either presidential candidate during the campaign season, and it makes no difference who wins:

...What shocks me is that they are unaware of many of the things that I tell them about the policies that Obama has followed, even though they read newspapers and watch a lot of TV news (although they disdain Fox News, naturally) and see themselves as well-informed. This is because whenever there is a bipartisan consensus on something, however important, those issues rarely get discussed. Glenn Greenwald points out that he experiences in print the same kind of response I experience in private, and adds:


The chances that any of these issues will be debated in an Obama/Romney presidential contest are exactly zero. On all of these issues — Endless War, empire, steadfast devotion to the Israeli government, due-process-free assassinations, multiple-nation drone assaults, escalating confrontation with Iran, the secretive, unchecked Surveillance and National Security States, the sadistic and racist Drug War, the full-scale capture of the political process by bankers and oligarchs — Romney is fully supportive of President Obama’s actions (except to the extent he argues they don’t go far enough: and those critiques will almost certainly be modulated once the primary is over, resulting in ever greater convergence between the two). As National Journal‘s Michael Hirsh put it yesterday: “In truth, Obama and Romney are far closer in mindset and philosophy than anyone is willing to acknowledge just now.” [emphasis in the original]...


Funny cartoon vid at end.

http://freethoughtblogs.
com/singham/2012/
02/08/talking-
with-obama-supporters/

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Garage, now Obama will pivot to cutting the corporate tax rate.

"President Barack Obama will call for cutting the top 35 percent corporate tax rate as early as this month, according to two sources close to the administration.
"

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Beldar said...

Q: "Why would an undecided voter vote for a moderate candidate who the party isn’t excited about?..."

A: Because they're convinced the incumbent needs to be replaced and the GOP nominee doesn't scare them as much as the second-place guy (who seemed not just willing, but eager, to use the federal government to enforce and impose social policies perceived by the moderate voter to be an abridgment of liberty).

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

@phx

Amen brother!

I would love to see a new political party of fiscal conservatives and social moderates. i would finlly have a political home.

Cedarford said...

Yashu - "Funny thing is, even if someone *is* homophobic, I can imagine them being put off by Santorum, for talking so much about something they'd rather not think about."

Yashu - I am probably in the mild homophobic category. I strongly resent the media and judges trying to shove the gay agenda down America's throat. I consider gay lifestyle, even "born that way" as a deviation from the norm and not a complete "blessing to society" - as disease spread by gays and drug addicts (many also born with an addictive personality) shows.

But with our present problems, the "war with gays and the gay agenda" is down on my list of priorities, starting with the economy, down about #19 or #22.
Well past China free trade, eternal wars via Neocons, domestic energy security, the huge increase in healthcare and grocery price costs. Down below our rotting, structurally deficient bridges. Escalating state taxes to pay for pensions the citizens never voted on. The black thug problem.

It will not affect my vote because I think Obama is wrong on the bigger issues...but Santorum is a Big Government Senator, with repellant social values ideas...like his Terri Schiavo grandstanding and his theocratic speeches...he has some serious past baggage on a Newt or Hillary scale.
And voters may well reject him if he dwells on gay marriage and "sanctity of life" matters and runs first on issues most voters place well down on the list of things they are highly concerned, even scared about.

They want the big issues addressed and focused on. Obama runs against the guy defending his multi-trillion moon colony project or the guy that spends half his time as THE conservative Culture Warrior - Obama could well get the Idependents and Moderates that want focus on jobs, the economy, energy development, trade China bankrupting us, endless wars.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
shiloh said...

"I'm supro disappointed in the Republican field"

And the truth shall set you free!

>

And another thread where conservatives are apologizing/rationalizing both mittens and Santo's shortcomings is always somewhat amusing.

chickenlittle said...

Bill, Republic of Texas memorialized: If Santorum is the Republican choice I will vote for Obama and hope there is a Republican congress.

As revenant pointed out, that's called denying the antecedent. link

edutcher said...

I ♥ Willard said...

As I've said before, facts are a bitch and I go by the facts.

But when I asked you to please supply a link so I can read more about your claim that "religious groups of all denominations [are] against [Obama]," you admitted you didn't have any facts to support your claim.


Some of us actually have a life, but OK, he wants links.

Protestants, Jews, Orthodox.

Links.

I'd ask for links from ♥, but I hate to think where his inane drivel originates.

shiloh said...

Again, ♥ is female as a few Althouse regulars continue to be deliberately obtuse! ie act like grade school kids.

chickenlittle said...

shiloh said...
Again, ♥ is female as a few Althouse regulars continue to be deliberately obtuse! ie act like grade school kids.

And you know this because?

BTW, where is the androgynous Jeremy Love?

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

No chicklit that is not analogous at all. I'm saying Santorum in unacceptable to me.

In my opinion, It would be better to have a constrained Obama than a thumper as prez and a Republican congress.

chickenlittle said...

@Bill: Then don't vote for someone because you can't stand his opponent. Unless you really are for the guy. It's called passive aggression.

shiloh said...

"And you know this because?"

♥ told one of Althouse's fools in a reply, plus it's mentioned on her blogger page.

Cue clueless clittle telling me everyone lies on the net.

edutcher said...

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

No chicklit that is not analogous at all. I'm saying Santorum in unacceptable to me.

In my opinion, It would be better to have a constrained Obama than a thumper as prez and a Republican congress.


Given that GodZero is perfectly happy to ignore Congress and do what he wants by regulatory bureaucracy, executive order, and ignoring the courts, and would no longer have to worry about being re-elected, how would Zero in a second term be constrained?

chickenlittle said...

Again, ♥ is female as a few Althouse regulars continue to be deliberately obtuse! ie act like grade school kids.

And you know this because?


Hermaphrodite.

chickenlittle said...

@Bill: It's "I'm so mad I'm gonna teach 'em lesson!" passive aggression.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

But I will vote for somebody even if I have to choose the least obnoxious choice.

Bring zombie Reagan back to life and I will vote for him. Reagan was the last vote I cast that I did not have to hold my nose.

MadisonMan said...

If you are going to be against Santorum at least find a legitimate reason.

Santorum meddling in the Schiavo family's end-of-life issues is symptomatic of (1) Santorum's desire to have Government control everything and (2) Santorum's pandering to the base.

chickenlittle said...

@MadisonMan: I can very easily and just as credibly write:
Obama meddling in the Catholic Church's stand on abortion is symptomatic of (1) Obama's desire to have Government control everything (including religion) and (2) Obams's pandering to the base.

The fact that Obama compromised shows that he's not an extremist.

Why are you so dead certain that Santorum will imprison your gay friends or extend the lives of every DNR hospital patient? Perhaps he'd be forced to compromise too, which is something one sees very little of these days.

shiloh said...

To be fair to Santorum, all politicians pander and there isn't anyone in America mittens hasn't pandered to at one point in time, I'm not concerned about poor people :D notwithstanding.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Chicklit,

I don't understand this passive/aggressive bullshit. It sounds like new age mumbo jumbo to me.

How is saying "I don't like your social conservative positions and I won't vote for you" passive/aggressive?

chickenlittle said...

How is saying "I don't like your social conservative positions and I won't vote for you" passive/aggressive?

That part's not passive aggressive by itself but coupling that with "so I'll vote for his opponent" is. Vote for what you want, what you support, what you believe in.

chickenlittle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

The end game is near now.

After Executioner Mitt's new debate coach got him firing back, and his money bought the carpet bombings in Florida, it is hard to see any good in Gingrich. He thinks of too many messages.

But Romney seems very unsure of himself since he cannot think of even one message other than the message for which Obama's Gang has rigged its trap .

And Romney is not very inspiring when he is repeating serious accusations that Santorum served in the Senate. That is not an effective a lie as the one that Gingrich was forced out of the Speakers job in disgrace by ethics violations.

Somehow Romney's attack don't ring as true about a smiling Santorum as they did about a scowling and aggressive Gingrich.

But whoever is nominated will win because the Tea Party members carry the day for him.

And Obama just asked for it with his war on Churches.

Nomadic100 said...

Professor,

You have a problem. You have many commenters but they repeat themselves.

That will cost you.

-Charles

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

@Shiloh

I agree all poiticians pander but Santorum actually believes that far right nonsense. Birth control is murder! We need a federal investigation in Schiavo! Let's fight about abortion even though there is not a damn thing we can do about it!

Bender said...

Again, Romney has insisted again and again that he's a social conservative -- if not severely socially conservative -- insisting that he is pro-life, against gay marriage, against gay adoptions, etc.

So, to all of you people who say you support Romney but hate social conservatives and would never vote for a social conservative --
who's the liar?

Are you lying about supporting Romney?

Or is Romney lying about his social conservativism? Is that why you support him, because you know that he is a liar and doesn't really mean it?

shiloh said...

Nomadic, redundancy is not exclusive to Althouse, as all political blogs are redundant.

Conversation in general is redundant, on the internet or otherwise ie human nature.

Some folk are worse than others :D re: their redundancy.

>

Again, there's only so many ways conservatives can say Obama sucks, as hard as they may try. :-P

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

@chicklit

again there is nothing passive/aggressive about voting for the person you think will do the least anount of damage.

And I said I might vote for the Libertarian candidate. First I have to remember his name :)

shiloh said...

Yes, Bill in TX, Santorum is an extreme "true believer" conservative on many issues. And yet mittens still can't put him away lol.

Such is the current Rep conundrum.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

@Bender

Romney is clearly lying about being a social con.

Like Shiloh said, all politicians pander. But you got to decide who actually believes the BS coming from their mouth.

MadisonMan said...

@MadisonMan: I can very easily and just as credibly write:

Of course you can.

In a discussion of Romney and Santorum, how is that relevant?

Why are you so dead certain that Santorum will imprison your gay friends

Your words, not mine.

Bender said...

So you support dishonest liars then?

How can you trust him then? How do you know that, on some issue you do care about, that the liar Romney won't come and stab you in the back?

Just what we need, another Liar-in-Chief.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

@Shiloh

of course Romney can't put away Santorum. The Republican party is hostage to the thumpers.

I can't stand the midget from Indiana because of right to work but I agreed with him on his call for a truce on social issues.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Bender because all politicians are lying dirtbags out for their own personal and financial advancements.

Again most votes are calculated on the least obnoxious choice.

Geoff Matthews said...

Just a question. There is no way that Romney will carry MA, and its doubtful that he'd carry MI. Has a presidential candidate every won the election without carrying his home state (I threw in MI because he was raised there)?

Bender said...

Since the Schaivo case has been brought up yet again, since everyone is so knowledgeable, I wonder if someone might enlighten us about how then-Governor Romney stood by and did nothing as Massachusetts officials tried to starve 11-year-old Haleigh Poutre to death?

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
So now we have accommodated the Catholic bishops on contraceptives


Really?

Can you provide 1 quote from 1 bishop saying they approve of what Obama said today?

Just 1, idiot. Can't wait to read it.

shiloh said...

"midget from Indiana" lol

Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative. ~ Joe Biden

Alas, "we" are all fallible, something to do w/Eve forcing Adam to eat the apple. :D

I digress.

garage mahal said...

I bet Jay just kills the ladies with that charm.

edutcher said...

I get the impression Bill is less Libertarian than Texian; i.e., someone who really doesn't exist.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

@edutcher

I'm not sure what you mean. My "Republic of Texas" is more a dream than a realistic expectation.

I would love to see a country or political party that was fiscally cconservative and socially moderate.

I really don't belong in either party. I'm not a libertarian either because they are too extreme on many topics (drugs (other than marijuana and national security).

I'm fiscally conservative, socially moderate to liberal and believe in a strong national defense. therefore I tend to hold my nose and vote for Rinos and Dinos.

If you think that is a mythical creature, you need to get out of your echo chamber and talk to moderates.

Alex said...

What's this bashing of Senators? Think of the perquisites one has to get through to become one! Ivy League education, law practice, state senator, Congressman. IT's a lot of hard work!

Cedarford said...

bGates - "Attempts by various Republican elected officials to keep doctors from making Schiavo starve to death appalled both those who lust for the death of Catholics and those who think the government can do virtually anything to anyone involved in any aspect of health care except keeping doctors from making patients starve to death.'

Cubanbob (on Santorums Schiavo involvement) "If you are going to be against Santorum at least find a legitimate reason."



===============
Republicans were warned that they were heading off a cliff with the religious crazies and right to life zealots - over the Terri Schiavo debacle. And unplugging from her machines was no different than tens thousands of other end of life decisions made by doctor and family where the switch is thrown and the brain-dead or vegetative living corpse is dead of suffication or dehydration. I would prefer they euthanize the "rutabaga" ones that still have enough brain activity to breathe - but the right to lifers scream murder over allowing fast euthanasia so they force a long dying process vs. the fairly quick suffocation of the luckier vegetatives.

Unlike Cubanbob protests....the Schiavo Debacle had profound political damage inflicted on most of them, save Jeb Bush.

1. Bush's Christmas "Save Terri Mission" - flying back to DC was laughed at as the crassest pandering. It marked the start of his political oblivion as a President with a majority of voters approving. The president's approval rating sliding 7 points in one week, from 52 percent to 45 percent. Bush was never to rise above 50% again.

2. Tom DeLay infamously said "Jesus sent Terri Schiavo to save me from the ethics controversy". Then people found out DeLay and his wife pulled the plug on DeLay's vegetable Father-in-Law. He was finished.

3. Bill Frist became a laughingstock and deemed a quack doctor over his comments that he had, as a cardiologist, looked at Terri Schiavo video and diagnoses her as "appearing to be as aware and cognative as you or I are". Frist later said he was carried away in the moment and regretted his remarks and how it had been used to question his reputation as a doctor.

4. All Democrats ran on the Terri Schiavo intrusion of the "Religious Right" controversy - bundling that in with other matters where "republican religious zealots want to criminalize personal family decisions and decisions by women over the fate of loved ones and their own bodies. Dem Leaders said after bungling in Iraq, the Schiavo Fiasco was one of 5 lesser but still "significant voter grabbing" issues that led them to take Congress.

5. No one was a bigger grandstander in this than Santorum. Even Gov Jeb Bush kept his distance from the hospice for the vegetative...and did not appear with the zealots in any other venue. But Santorum went there and all but donned priest vestaments as he preached criminalizing people involved, "properly rehabilitating Terri once the government and Schindlers get custody", Jesus wants Terri to be able to talk and testify in Congress along with doctors and the trial judge Santorum used clout to issue subpeonas on... once she was rehabbed about her "ordeal", doing a Catholic zealot spiel....

In Pennsylvania in Santorums landslide defeat, an astonishing 34% of voters said that Santorums big meddling in the Terri Schiavo Fiasco led them to view Santorum "with extreme negativity" about his actions in that matter, and was among the top two issues they considered in voting between Casey and Santorum. 8% were Republicans.

Jaske said...

Sleepy Hollow, the road along two ditches, ahead isn't a head, but the birthplace of the ghost. Ichabod is spooked.

I find the mental picture fits many situations.

chickenlittle said...

@Cedarford: People are more afraid of death panels than the memory of the "Schiavo Fiasco." I understand your compulsion to destroy Santorum, especially in view of your name dropping Jeb Bush, but really, Terri Schiavo ain't gonna cut it. You're probably better off cozying up to the Sullivanists here--if they'll have you.

deborah said...

@Palladian: more like Subterranean Homesick Blues.

edutcher said...

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

I'm not sure what you mean. My "Republic of Texas" is more a dream than a realistic expectation.

I would love to see a country or political party that was fiscally cconservative and socially moderate.

I really don't belong in either party. I'm not a libertarian either because they are too extreme on many topics (drugs (other than marijuana and national security).

I'm fiscally conservative, socially moderate to liberal and believe in a strong national defense. therefore I tend to hold my nose and vote for Rinos and Dinos.

If you think that is a mythical creature, you need to get out of your echo chamber and talk to moderates.


I can barely believe anyone who would throw away their vote on a Libertarian after seeing the 1% that went to Bob Barr help elect Barry, the Bush League Stalinist.

I refuse to believe someone who would vote for Obama on the fiction that he would somehow be constrained in a second term because he doesn't like anyone currently in the Republican field.

Cedarford said...

Bender said...
"Since the Schaivo case has been brought up yet again, since everyone is so knowledgeable, I wonder if someone might enlighten us about how then-Governor Romney stood by and did nothing as Massachusetts officials tried to starve 11-year-old Haleigh Poutre to death?"

=============
Perhaps because as Romney noted atthe time, he was not a doctor who was knowledgable enough to step in one way or the other, and the proper place to resolve matters was through the legal guardians, doctors on both sides, and the legal process. The question was over if the patient was so brain-damaged they would die if the artificial life support machine that ventilated the patient was turned off...and the patient was allowed to die as a consequence. Which is what the attending physicians recommended. See if she could breathe on her own, if not, let her go.

Romney did order an idependent investigation into the way the comatose patient became brain-damaged and the conduct of Department of Social Services throughout the case.

When the respirator was unplugged after the case had been taken to the Mass Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court had declined to take the case - it turned out the doctors erred - the young patient could breathe, after all.

Hard to fault Romney in this...he did not meddle...and left it to medical opinion, the disputing doctors, and the legal process. But went after the cause of the child's injuries and if DSS had mishandled what could become a murder case...things within his sphere of authority...with a full independent investigation.

Revenant said...

For those who don't remember, Terri Schiavo was the virtually brain dead woman who was removed from life support against her parents' wishes so her "husband" could marry the woman he was living with.

Those who DO remember are thankfully immune to your spin on events.

Revenant said...

Is that why you support him, because you know that he is a liar and doesn't really mean it?

I think Romney is personally socially conservative. Santorum believes in using the full force of government to make social conservatism the rule of law. It is equivalent to the difference between a devout Muslim and a devout Muslim who wants to impose sharia on his fellow citizens.

Also -- if you think your candidate of choice isn't a liar, you're not very bright. There are no honest politicians at the national level. No honest person has been elected to the Presidency in your lifetime, if ever.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

@edutcher

If Republicans put Santorum up for prez, I think you will be very surprised. Most people don't hate Obama. I don't hate Obama. I have been very disappointed in his extremism and his failed policies.

For example, Imagine if Obama had stood up to Pelosi and Reid and did a stimulus package that was true stimulus and not stupid pork laden payoff to the Dems. Imagine Obama had struck the grand bargain on spending and taxes. Imagine if Obama had created a compromised health care bill.

I think Obama would have been a successful president. All those things could have happened if Obama had been more experienced. So now he has more experience and a Republican congress could constrain him. He could have a successful second term.

My preference would be a moderate Republican who would put the economy first. But if it comes down to a choice of Santorum or Obama I would pick Obama because I really think the congress and senate will go Republican.

I think economy (short term help and long term reform) is the most important issue by far. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the voters do hate Obama enough to embrace a social con.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

ps I forgot to say.

I was very wrong about Reagan. My first vote ever was for Carter in 1980. I thought Reagan was too extreme. Boy was I wrong! I corrected that mistake in 1984. I never regretted that vote.

If Santorum is the candidate, I will keep an open mind but his social conservatism has really turned me off.

WV ressese. A perfect before bed snack. Good night all.

garage mahal said...

Obama's conservatism has pushed Republicans so far right as to be caricatures of themselves. Starting to think the timing of this birth control brouhaha, Santorum's rise, and consequential neutering of Romney to be no coincidence.

Bender said...

That's right. Gov. Romney stood by and did nothing as state officials tried to kill Haleigh Poutre by starvation. Afterward, after she regained consciousness -- six years ago -- Romney claimed to be unaware that anything was going on at all, despite the case making headlines before the Mass. Supreme Court.

He stood by and did nothing to stop officials in his Administration and this innocent little girl -- alive today, no thanks to him -- was nearly killed.

bgates said...

Those who DO remember are thankfully immune to your spin on events.

No, Revenant, the way I described it is exactly how it happened. I can't prevent you from lying to yourself, but I can and will point out when you're lying to me.

Revenant said...

No, Revenant, the way I described it is exactly how it happened.

You're lying.

But since my side (thankfully) won, and since I've wiped things off my ass that matter more to me than your side's opinion, I'll leave it at that.

Bender said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bender said...

Ha! He comes in here acting like he's the long-time Republican -- "Reagan was the last vote I cast that I did not have to hold my nose" -- and he's an Obama supporter who also voted for Jimmy Carter!

Yeah, Republicans should really listen to this guy.

crosspatch said...

"Why would an undecided voter vote for a moderate candidate who the party isn’t excited about?"

I would rather have a moderate who can beat Obama than have a conservative who loses. The goal isn't to have a candidate who most reflects my personal values, the goal right now is to get Obama the hell out of the White House.

Nominating a candidate that can't beat Obama is a big, giant, waste of time.

master cylinder said...

Cedarford, nice post.

Cedarford said...

chickenlittle said...
@Cedarford: People are more afraid of death panels than the memory of the "Schiavo Fiasco." I understand your compulsion to destroy Santorum, especially in view of your name dropping Jeb Bush,

================
I don't see any desire in Ron Paul or Romney to have "Federal Death Panels".
I simply marvel that Jeb Bush was lucky to have the Teflon that made the Terri Schiavo fiasco never cling to him that clung to other Republicans forever, like Santorum and Bush and Delay. That's all.

Newt was out of office and was chasing money so he had no use for the Schiavo biz unless one side or the other paid him to opine. But recently, he said that though the right to lifers were sincere, they way they went about it struck the country as a tremendous overreaction by two Branches of the Federal government.

Romney was not involved. But later, as Governor when similar cases end of life cases came up said he was not a doctor. And that those difficult matters are best left to the individual to express, document. Romney and his wife had living wills, he encouraged others to make their wishes known and wrote it down...and in Mass, poor people can have living wills made for free.
And in cases where the individual had not set limits of treatment - it was up to families and doctors to make the hard choices, with the legal system there to resolve disputes - hopefully rarely and infrequently.

As for Ron Paul, he excoriated Bush, DeLay, Santorum, Frist and the Christian Right over Federal meddling in the Schiavo business - as an extreme abuse of their constitutional powers. Voted against it and lead a faction of Republicans against DeLay, along with Chris Shays. Shays also made a point of saying he didn't appreciate DeLay's threats against the Republican rebels.
Paul went on how the Christian Right and their Big Federal Government solutions were as big a danger to liberty and America's solvency as the liberals and their entitlements. Life extension at any cost regardless of quality of life was set to cost America another 7 trillion dollars it didn't have, Paul warned in 2005. And he said there was no mandate for social conservatives to use Federal powers to inflict their morality on states, families, and individuals..And he questioned the near universal love of the Christian Right for bloody wars, killing children by witholding food and medicine while calling life of America embryos and dying seniors "sacrosanct" and to be saved at all costs by Federal laws and expenditures.
That he never knew a patient that would have wanted to exist in the state that Schiavo ended up in for 15 years, so everyone should have a living will.

Revenant said...

Bender,

Good point. Republicans should ignore anyone who used to vote for Democrats. Those people suck.

bgates said...

Revenant, you're lying and you know you're lying. You can't refute one word of what I wrote, so you fling insults and run away.

Bender said...

Good point. Republicans should ignore anyone who used to vote for Democrats.

We should ignore when Dems claim to be Republicans. And we should ignore when a Dem claiming to be Republican threatens to vote Democrat if the Republicans do not nominate someone who is himself a questionable Republican at best.

Bender said...

And any civilized person should ignore those moral monsters who criticize efforts to protect and save innocent human life, and who advocate for the legalized murder of innocent human beings by starvation and dehydration.

I ♥ Willard said...

Some of us actually have a life, but OK, he wants links.

Protestants, Jews, Orthodox.


Are you including yourself in your "some of us actually have a life" whine? I'm willing to pretend it's true if you are...

BTW, the "Protestants" link isn't valid, and the other links hardly comprise "religious groups of all denominations."

Revenant said...

We should ignore when Dems claim to be Republicans.

Yawn.

Bruce Hayden said...

What I think is frustrating here is that social conservatism is not what is going to get anyone, except for Obama, elected President this time. All this social conservatism that is giving Santorum so much momentum right now would work against him in the general election. A stridently pro-life candidate is not going to do better then, than a moderately pro-life candidate, and, indeed, quite the opposite.

I am still trying to see what Santorum has going for him, above and beyond being even more nutso than the others in terms of social conservatism. Certainly, he isn't any more fiscally conservative, which is what should be important this time around.

That said, the Dems are no better off, with the more ideologically extreme candidate, of two fairly extreme candidates ideologically, getting the nomination last time, and presumably again, and as a result, we have $5 trillion in new debt, no pipeline from Alaska or nuclear storage facility, and a fight over birth control with the Vatican (and many more) that this candidate cannot win.

Cedarford said...

Bruce Hayden - That said, the Dems are no better off, with the more ideologically extreme candidate... that this candidate cannot win.

That is the big blindspot of conservative "purists" and the rightwing religious zealots.

They think since Obama is so hated by them, the rest of the country also hates him - and therefore this is their Golden Moment to make the hardest core, most extreme Christian Talibani the next President....or even an unstable blowhard dripping sleaze who has Big Ideas.
They weep that an unqualified snakeoil salesman will not be the nominee, and that a Texan dumber than Dubya won't be in the Oval Office ...

With the election GIFTED to far right conservatives!!

They are very very wrong.
The middle of America regards Cain and Perry as jokes akin to Al Sharpton. That they were the ones that intensely disliked Gingrich and were the folks that ousted Rick Santorum in a landside in Pennsylvania.

2004 should have been the year that the bumbling, failed American Churchill was made a one-term President. That election was gift-wrapped for Democrats. Then they nominated a liberal purist in John Kerry...and so blew it.

Rusty said...

hmm, maybe because Obama is running unopposed. Just a thought. :-P



You just keep thinkin, there Butch.



The current resident hasn't got a prayer. Which is good since he's an athiest.

Rusty said...

Obama's conservatism



What? Just to the right of Pol Pot?




Comedy gold, that.

Darrell said...

For those who don't remember, Terri Schiavo was the virtually brain dead woman who was removed from life support...

Only she wasn't on life support. She was NOT in a coma. She had a normal remaining life expectancy for a normal woman her age. Her parents and brother had already agreed to her care without any financial assistance. What's more, a multi-millionaire had already pledged to set up a multi-million dollar trust for her medical care with her blood family.

Ignorance because you only watch Left-leaning media or fucking lies on your part.

Paco Wové said...

"Why would an undecided voter vote for a moderate candidate who the party isn’t excited about?..."

What a silly question. Why should a 'moderate' voter care who some party is excited about? The more "the party" is excited! by some candidate - especially when "the party" is shorthand for "party activists and ideologues" - the more alarm bells should go off for politically moderate voters.

Paco Wové said...

Signs of impending apocalypse:

1) Cedarford made an entire comment without blaming !the Joooooooooooooss!! for anything; and

2) I agree with him.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Severely hollow conservatism = RINO republicanism.

Or, if you will, leftist appeaser.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

cedarford

That there is some severely flawed analysis.

A majority of Americans not only self-identify as conservative, but actually conduct their personal lives conservatively - moreso than the self-identified percentage.

You fail to factor those that are perhaps overly-concerned about how they posture themselves POLITICALLY.

That is, even the self-identifying liberal conducts themselves far more conservatively in a PERSONAL sense than they are willing to admit.

Hence, the invocation of Fen's law: that liberals don't always believe what they say.

Paco Wové said...

"A majority of Americans not only self-identify as conservative"

Do you have a link to support this? Because that's not what I seem to remember.

Paco Wové said...

Here is what I was thinking was the case:

10% 'very conservative'
30% 'conservative'
35% 'moderate'
15% 'liberal'
  6% 'very liberal'
  4% 'no opinion'

If you lump together 'very conservative' and 'conservative', you get a plurality, but not a majority.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Paco

'Links' are not 'proof'. What 'truth' site do you frequent? Do tell. And while you are at it, go ahead and provide your 'link' proving me wrong.

Anecdotally, there have been many 'polls' of cross-sections of Americans that indicate exactly what I said. That is not 'proof' either - but I am not deranged enough as others to project wishes onto the internets.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Paco

Do not make the mistake of those that self-identify for political purposes, meaning they actually conduct themselves/live a different reality than they project.

shiloh said...

Let me help you guys out! Hey, I was raised a Christian! :)

Both 2004/2008 CNN exit polls:

34% of the electorate "said" they were conservative.

btw, of those 34% in 2004 (15%) voted for Kerry, so the dislike of Bush among Reps had already started, totally tanking in 2005/2006 as timing is everything in politics. I digress.

And of the 34% in 2008, (20%) voted for Obama over McCain.

>

Goldwater got 38.5% in 1960, so on the bright side, Santorum will probably do better than that, depending on how many times he opens his mouth! :-P

As always, keep hope alive as it's early.

shiloh said...

Goldwater = 1964

btw, Nixon didn't really make a "comeback" as he got 49.6% in 1960 and only (43.4%) in 1968 in a 3/way as again, timing is everything in politics.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

shiloh

Good to see you up your game and provide something to analyze other than sarcasm or denigration.

Agree about the 'timing' point for sure.

And its critical to understand that self-identification is affected by timing and method as well.

shiloh said...

"Good to see you up your game"

Thanx as I'm more macro than micro ;) as I don't care about the nuts and bolts, but I'm very good re: "Big Picture" as presidential politics is not rocket science ie one political party totally fucks up and is replaced by the opposition.

Three years ago mentioned the Rep party was mirroring the Dem party of 2008 ie totally imploding leading to Nixon's '72 landslide.

Not a total equal analogy, but just like 1968 had a lot of liberal radicals, the past (3) years have seen the rise of conservative extremism re: social issues.

Political pundits would say the Reps can't see the forest for the trees as again, Big Picture ie why didn't Obama bring up that McCain voted against the new G.I. Bill. Because it would ahve just highlighted the fact that McCain was a genuine war hero and Obama didn't serve.

Again, Big Picture and don't get bogged down in the ad nauseam meaningless media minutiae ... that appears every day at conservative political blogs! ;)

Again, there's only so many ways Reps can say Obama sucks! :)

shiloh said...

Dem party of 1968