It's Now or Never for Conservative voters. We can either unite now behind one candidate and have a conservative standard bearer in 2012, or have the GOP establishment choose another moderate Republican who will have a difficult time defeating Barack Obama in November.
I don't think that's what you want. Neither do I. My name is Rick Santorum, and I am the only authentic, passionate conservative who can unite the GOP.
I need an URGENT contribution of at least $35 today to unite conservative voters and win the Republican nomination.
We shocked the world last night in Iowa. We did it with a coalition of conservatives, Tea Party members, and values voters who recognized that my successful conservative record gives the GOP the best chance to defeat Barack Obama.
No more sitting on the sidelines. Now is the time to act or get stuck with a bland, boring, career politician who will lose to Barack Obama. Tomorrow will be too late. Will you unite with me, merge conservative support, and help us hold our banner high? Your contribution of $35, $50, or even $75 can make sure this happens.
The next test is New Hampshire … a state Mitt Romney has campaigned in for over four years. This is why I need your immediate support. I’m counting on conservatives around America to respond to this call for help. If we are divided in New Hampshire, we will lose this opportunity to keep the momentum.
I will be the most conservative President since Ronald Reagan. I am not going to Washington to blend in and hope people like me. I am running to dismantle the Obama Agenda and lead--like Reagan did.
The Washington Post said, “Rick Santorum was a tea-party kind of guy before the tea-party even existed.” As a conservative U.S. Senator from the swing state of Pennsylvania, I led the overhaul of welfare that moved millions from welfare to work. I authored the bill banning partial-birth abortion, and I passed legislation that protected America from Iran’s growing nuclear threat.
If you want a President who will stand up for conservative values, who is consistent on the issues, and who has a record to back it up, then I need you to join my campaign.
I need you to join me today. Right now. Not tomorrow or next week. If you want to roll back the Obama Agenda with a real conservative, this is your chance. The future of our country depends on what conservatives like you do in the next 72 hours.
Will you join us today with a generous contribution of whatever you can afford?
I give Republicans the best option to put a full-spectrum conservative in the White House. Help me make history!
Sincerely,
Rick Santorum
P.S. I went from longshot to the Iowa Caucus “surprise candidate” overnight. Now conservatives must unite or be defeated. Please donate today and take a stand with my campaign. Join the fight!
January 4, 2012
"Dear Patriot: It's Now or Never for Conservative voters."
I get email from Rick Santorum, who ran even with Mitt Romney in last night's Iowa Caucuses (or do you want to say he lost, when he "lost" by 8 votes?):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
145 comments:
All this apocalyptic language while pressing the recepient that the only way tostop said apocalypse is if you give him money.
And yet, amazingly, Althouse does not say "Back off!" Really, I find this so INTERESTING.
Santorum, remember, couldnt get reelected to his Senate seat in PA. His brand of politics may sound good, but, he cant get elected.If he goes up against Obama, he is just ensuring that Obama get a second term easily.
remember, the number of people who voted in Iowa yesterday is about the size of the average crowd in Michigan Stadium every football saturday in the fall. Doesnt say very much.
"All this apocalyptic language while pressing the recipient (fixed) that the only way to stop (fixed) said apocalypse is if you give him money."
Um, this is standard operating procedure for political candidates soliciting donations.
Not.
Very.
Interesting.
wv - psyms
"Um, this is standard operating procedure for political candidates soliciting donations."
Yes, yes it is.
"Not.
Very.
Interesting."
No it isn't.
"We shocked the world last night in Iowa."
Has there ever been a phrase so overused and underwhelming in most situations? No you didn't, you didn't even shock the people the Iowa! And to use it in a campaign fundraising letter...pathetic.
BO declaring he wants to repeal Obamacare on the same day he strikes Iran's nuclear facilities while curbing the FDA's and EPA's regulatory authority, now that would shock the world!
Santorum is the eternal Eagle Scout expecting to be honored for being good... and good for what exactly?
He is just as tricky of a professional politician as the others, but his trick is to use a "trust me because I am naive persona."
"... Santorum, remember, couldnt get reelected to his Senate seat in PA..."
That reminds me that if Al Gore could have carried his home state in 2000 he would have been President.
"Santorum, remember, couldnt get reelected to his Senate seat in PA"
He ran against a Casey. Not just any Casey, but Bob Casey Jr. Bob Casey Sr. is one of the most popular PA politicians in history. He's so popular that "Bob Caseys" that aren't even related to him get elected to public office in Pennsylvania.
Santorum lost in 2006 too. This was one the worst times for a Republican incumbent to win.
Iowa picked Obama, too.
And demands ethanol subsidies.
They are more concerned with social conservatism than the fiscal type.
Fickle big gubmint conservatives.
The Iowa result is, again, a testament to the power a few preacher men have over their faithful flocks. In the bigger picture, Iowa is not very important at all.
Because someone eventually has to post it:
http://spreadingsantorum.com/
Iowa caucuses are irrelevant. We saw that in the last election, and I don't that'll change this time around. Having said that, I do believe that Romney is going to coast through the rest of the primaries, and then will likely lose the general election.
Dear Patriot: ...
Methinks the Patriots were all about Liberty. Santorum is about theocracy. None of my money for you, Rick.
Sign me - Libertarian.
Here's what I know about Rick Santorum:
* Single, unremarkable Senate term in PA, lost re-election. The "led welfare reform" bit is new to me, but leaves me skeptical- when, exactly, did this happen?
* Speaks profoundly on social conservative issues. Good, I guess, but not what I'm looking for in a president. He talks a lot about needing to save the family, but if he's proposed any actual policies by which the gov't could do that (unlikely), I haven't heard them and I doubt that I'd support them if I did.
* Pissed off that 13 year old gay guy Dan Savage somehow. About this I do not care.
Any business experience, leadership in any role, anything economic, any significant foreign policy experience? Unless there's something big in his bio that I'm missing, there's no way that I could imagine supporting this guy.
I certainly don't think he'll get the nom, but if he does and I don't learn anything huge, I'm out.
". . .I do believe that Romney is going to coast through the resty of the primaries and then will likely lose the general election."
Spot on. And not only lose, but lose big, while the 'mainstream' GOPers pick their noses and wonder how such a non-threatening moderate could lose. "He must have been a too extreme Tea Partier!" they will cry and go back to looking for the next Nelson Rockefeller, while all the time grateful some icky conservative didn't take the trough away from them.
He should ask Arlen Specter.
"while all the time grateful some icky conservative didn't take the trough away from them."
Just curious, who do you feel the conservative is in this crappy crop of Republican candidates?
And not only lose, but lose big, while the 'mainstream' GOPers pick their noses and wonder
Whereas, what, Santorum would really kick Obama's butt? Really?
Christopher in MA: "He must have been a too extreme Tea Partier!"
I know I've already responded, but I'm feeling procrastion-ish. Here's the thing, as far as I can tell, Romney's more conservative, at least on issues that matter to me, then Gingrich or Santorum. I don't know if anyone's choosing to support Romney because he's more "moderate" and some other guy is too "conservative", but that's not at all why I'm supporting Romney. The exact opposite.
It never ceases to amaze me how TEH ESTABLISHMENT gets to pick the GOP nominee. TEH ESTABLISHMENT certainly didn't pick Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell and a few others for thir respective senate races in 2010 with nearly half of them losing.
Even Ranger Rick endorsed that great ESTABLISHMENT senior senator Arlen Spector on a few occasions. Santorum is the biggest loser of them all getting beat by nearly 20 points in his unsuccessful re-election bid in 2006.
A complete garden variety non-entity whose only claim to fame is he ran a close second in a caucus state where any crackpot can show up to vote. As long as he panders to the evangelicals with a lot of empty platitudes.
Everything being said about Santorum vs Obama was said about Reagan vs Carter. Biggest difference was Carter had a much bigger polling edge over Reagan at this point of the campaign than Obama does over Santorum. Yes, Reagan was an extremist wild man who hated women because he didn't want children to be dismembered and he was a rigid idealogue who would bring on war with the Soviets.
Bob Casey Sr. is one of the most popular PA politicians in history. He's so popular that "Bob Caseys" that aren't even related to him get elected to public office in Pennsylvania.
Yet Bob Casey's legacy as a Democrat pro-lifer has pretty much been scrubbed from the Democratic party. No room for him at the alleged party of diversity. At least on the national level. Glad to hear he's still revered at the local level.
If you ever want to read some incredible writing on the right to life, read Bob Casey Sr.'s writings on the subject. A conservative couldn't have said it better.
ABO.
Let's not screw this up, people.
Single, unremarkable Senate term in PA, lost re-election.
Santorum was in the senate for 2 terms.
David Gray: Santorum vs Obama was said about Reagan vs Carter.
If Santorum manages a term or two as governor of California, then maybe I'll consider him.
Santorum's not only inexperienced, but he's weak and whiny. No one would have ever called Reagan weak or whiny.
Santorum is about theocracy
Hysterical.
I bet you could give us two examples of this.
Single, unremarkable Senate term in PA, lost re-election.
Santorum was in the senate for 2 terms.
My bad then. Did he do anything of note then?
Reagan had eight years as governor of California. Santorum had twelve years in the US Senate. Make of that what you will.
Lyssa,
The one real thing of note for Santorum was managing the 1996 welfare reform bill in the Senate.
He was the R Conference Chairman too.
Except that he can't unite the GOP, since he can't get me to vote for him. I *might* vote Republican against Obama, but never, ever FOR Santorum. Young Bob Dole with a moralistic bent.
David Gray, that's true, but the difference is that Reagan also had substantive experience as the governor of California -- which was not far from where we are now when he started. He turned around the state as the executive. He had immense personal charm, a great speaker, a great overall communicator, an actual star. He could take difficult concepts, and deliver them in a sometimes folksy, sometimes dramatic way, that helped the broader public want to take part.
Santorum has neither significant executive experience nor immense personal charm. That means Reagan and he just aren't at all comparable as candidates.
Is Romney's edge over Santorum strong enough? I don't think I could stomach a garage mahal demand for a recount just so that he could say he was prescient.
8 votes? You can count that on two hands with two fingers left over. Santorum Shocker!
Bachmann and Perry conservatives: get behind Rick. United we win. And anyway, all Ricks are great!
It doesn't appear the GOP has any candidate that can "unite" them.
At least at this point.
Though as the ecomony continues to stumble and Europe meltsdown and the Taliban declares victory of the US in Afghanistan this year, I wonder if that will change.
People should go back into the archives and see how Reagan was being described in 1980. People are having difficulty viewing him in that context instead seeing him through the hue of his time as President. One thing Reagan and Santorum have in common is the ability to appeal to the working class voter, a real Obama weak point. Romeny is probably the least capable candidate when it comes to speaking to the working class.
David Gray said: Reagan had eight years as governor of California. Santorum had twelve years in the US Senate. Make of that what you will.
The role of senator is in no way comparable to the role of governor. Someone aiming for an executive role needs to have executive experience.
Santorum was the Senate Republican Conference Chairman. He was the point man on the Democratic Senators spending proposals.
I think Santourm's defense of Specter is a huge negative going forward, but it won't be what will sink him.
I kept telling myself that some viable, GOP candidate would run...and then it didn't happen. Huntsmann was the only one I thought would have a good shot, but he's polling at near-zero (although 10% in NH, somehow).
I guess we'll see how it shapes out. Regardless, we won't see a Republican in the White House until 2016, at the earliest.
"One thing Reagan and Santorum have in common is the ability to appeal to the working class voter"
That appeal sure didn't show itself when he lost his Senate seat to Casey now did it?
Please stop bringing up Reagan when speaking of Santorum.
The country's big problems right now are fiscal.
You need a fiscal conservative or, at least, a fiscal competent.
Evidence that Santorum is either?
David Brooks has called Santorum a working class conservative, a Volokh post a big gubmint conservative, Ann can spell, heh, heh, heh. It was interesting to see him cite his grandfather's leaving Italy in the 20's when Mussolini came to power as to my not real informed speculation Mussolini was also a big gubmint conservative in a way; probably just went a tad far for the pops. Anyway, Santorum is kind of a Catholic Social Welfare kind of conservative apparently; so at least in a religious social sense it's nice that the evangelicals would have him. It's interesting how Iowa broke - quite polar with Santorum and Ron Paul, the latter a simplistic libertarian true enough but also simplistic enough to be antilibertarian also.
"That appeal sure didn't show itself when he lost his Senate seat to Casey now did it?"
No. It didn't. Would it have helped then?
2006 is an outlier. It was an election year with an electorate that was immensely dissatisfied with the direction of the nation, largely do the Iraq War at the time, and voter punished Republicans for it.
You can see what the result was. It put the Democrats in the spending drivers seat with President Bush riding shotgun approving nearly everything they sent to his desk.
BACHMANN CANCELS TRIP TO SC, SETS PRESS CONFERENCE FOR 11 AM EST...
BACHMANN CANCELS TRIP TO SC, SETS PRESS CONFERENCE FOR 11 AM EST...
Interesting, and it looks like Perry's going to drop out, too. Do both of them throw their support to Santorum? Does that do much for him?
(As an aside: Such a shame that Perry wound up such a bad candidate.)
Congratulations to President Obama on last night's victory...
Romney is not a fiscal conservative, he is a Big Government Republican. Have you even heard of Romneycare? It was the blueprint for Obamacare. Romney is a joke and many of you here are just supporting him because you are being manipulated by the mainstream media.
[We] need a fiscal conservative or, at least, a fiscal competent.
Freeman is right. Santorum is a strong social conservative, but that's not what this country needs.
(I also disagree with several of Santorum's claims--he's just making stuff up now. He's not a tea party guy; this is a guy who wants to use the power of government to push his social conservative agenda.
Finally Rick Santorum voted for No Child Left Behind. That is not conservatism in any way, shape or form.)
Romney was largely responsible for turning the Massachusetts deficit into a surplus. That's what this country needs, not more idealogs who yack and strut around, but end up just making things worse.
this is a guy who wants to use the power of government to push his social conservative agenda.
I would amend that to "social agenda" and using the power of government to achieve it would push him left. Most social "conservatives" don't like to hear that, but it's true in almost all cases.
I totally agree with Freeman and Joe.
BTW, please ignore "Dane County Taxpayer." He has a long history of moby-ing under various names.
Perry and Bachmann supporters will get behind Santorum. Newt all but endorsed Santorum in his speech last night while calling Romney out as a weasel.
We now have the race down to liberal Romney and conservative Santorum. The Big Government Republians and the media clearly want Romney. I believe regular Americans will rise up for Santorum who is a conservative real Christian man. The nation's soul hangs in the balance.
Romney was largely responsible for turning the Massachusetts deficit into a surplus.
Abstract question. Would you accept Obamacare if it meant the rest of our shit got fixed? I am NOT suggesting Obamacare will do anything holistic in fixing our debt and employment problems. I'm asking if you would accept it in total if it meant the aggregate of all the other shit going on got fixed or at least pointed in the right direction?
I'm not suggesting Romney is the guy to do that. I'm just positing a question to be discussed.
(or do you want to say he lost, when he "lost" by 8 votes?)
Isn't it a three-way tie? The projected outcome is that Romney, Santorum, and Paul will each get 7 delegates, while Gingrich and Perry each get 2.
Santorum has always tried hard to make himself sound more important than he ever had any chance of being. This is no exception.
As I say, the lightest of weights
Daniel Fielding said...
Santorum, remember, couldnt get reelected to his Senate seat in PA.
Elected in '94, re-elected in '00. Voted out because he was a big earmarker.
Brennan said...
He ran against a Casey. Not just any Casey, but Bob Casey Jr. Bob Casey Sr. is one of the most popular PA politicians in history. He's so popular that "Bob Caseys" that aren't even related to him get elected to public office in Pennsylvania.
Baloney.
Casey was popular among more Conservative Democrats, but he was PA's Harold Stassen, running 4 times before being elected Governor.
Bobby Casey prevailed in an election where calling out the incumbent on his earmarking would have gotten almost any Democrat elected.
“Rick Santorum was a tea-party kind of guy before the tea-party even existed"
I would qualify as socially conservative.
I wish the Tea Party would reclaim its brand.
Wasn't the Tea Party about deficit reduction, lower taxes and fiscal responsibility?
Daniel Fielding,
Santorum, remember, couldnt get reelected to his Senate seat in PA. His brand of politics may sound good, but, he cant get elected.If he goes up against Obama, he is just ensuring that Obama get a second term easily.
While I'm not sold on this Santorum message either - and I kinda like the guy - your "logic" is even worse:
Who wants four more years of what we've had?
So where is this groundswell of support for Obama supposed to come from?
You talk nonsense,...
So where is this groundswell of support for Obama supposed to come from?
A healthy chunk of the support won't be "for" Obama. It will be against the GOP.
traditionalguy,
Santorum is the eternal Eagle Scout expecting to be honored for being good... and good for what exactly?
He is just as tricky of a professional politician as the others, but his trick is to use a "trust me because I am naive persona."
Exactly, so can we please get on to electing Newt, now? There's absolutely no trickery (or naivety) there,...
"Who do you feel the conservative is in this crappy crop of Republican candidates?"
Excellent question. Frankly, none. Perry occasionally comes closest, but his immigration policy frosts me, just as it did with Dubya. I find the throw-up-your-hands attitude of "well, they're all here, what are you going to do?" to be self-defeating. It admits that the bulkhead has been breached and all we can do is slow the flooding rather than plug the leak. A "path to citizenship" should be encouraged, but there must be penalties for breaking the law; real, painful penalties. And assimilation MUST be demanded.
I believe abortion to be a mortal stain on this nation, but Santorum doesn't merit "conservative" bona fides by claiming to make it illegal. Turn RvW back to the states and let them deal with it at the local level. Don't use the force of the government to impose a social agenda.
Bachmann's a fool, Gingrich is a loudmouth, Huntsmann an establishment tool and Paul an anti-semitic disgrace. Romney? Besides the fact that he's a lying weasel, anyone using the force of government to make me buy a product casts himself out of the ranks of conservatives, no matter how much he boasts of his success as a businessman.
And that's just of the top of my head. As DBQ and I said in a different thread, I think this country deserves another term of Little Black Jesus just to pass out in the gutter of Marxist statism. If that doesn't wake up the 52%, nothing will, and all of the crowing about Tea Party congresses and defunding NPR will be rearranging the Titanic's deck chairs.
YMMV, of course.
Rick Santorum seems like an incredibly decent man.
Romney is a an incredibly competent man, almost uniquely competent among presidential contenders as of late. I think he presents a real opportunity to have someone who knows how to manage, how to execute, and with long and short term vision, finally in this country.
He does not have every position I like but man oh man, how I long to have someone who knows what he's doing at the helm of this ship.
I agree with Freeman Hunt, which it pleases me no end to say after 10+ months away. Santorum seems like a wonderful guy, but poorly-equipped for the election in front of us.
Boy, Newt is sure coming off poorly, the whining brat of liberal caricature. Liberals are going to lap it up now, though, so long as his narcissistic tantrum is aimed at Romney.
I noted in the Santorum e-mail that weird logic the right has adopted lately: "If you want to win over independents, you need a hard-core conservative!" Why do they keep peddling that?
BACHMANN CANCELS TRIP TO SC, SETS PRESS CONFERENCE FOR 11 AM EST...
Uh-oh. it looks like "because we know, I know, the one who gives miracles” didn't help much.
Funny how that happens.
Christians and other believers, please make a note of it.
And yes, I expect this reminder of God's disappearing act to be ignored by other believers, just I expect it to be ignored by the media and Bachmann herself. Living in a country of belief:
Unbelievable,...
Not now or never, but Now or Never!
And why capitalize Conservative?
Scott M,
A healthy chunk of the support won't be "for" Obama. It will be against the GOP.
Again, you're imagining things:
Obama barely squeaked out a win last election - with a full-on cult of personality working for him.
Stop tripping, guys,...
"(or do you want to say he lost, when he "lost" by 8 votes?)"
I want to say he lost, even if there really is more of a delegate tie. Santorum needed Iowa much more than Romney did. Iowa is where social conservatives find the most support, so if this is where Santorum should be strongest and he didn't quite make it, that means he really doesn't have momentum.
Certainly he has more than Bachmann or Perry, who were after the same votes, but Santorum is in a much weaker position than Huckabee was during last election.
I've never been a Romney guy, but he's stuck it out without falling off to the side like the others, so he's getting the pick.
He's also very much not like George W Bush, which gets us past Obama trying to run against a Bush-like candidate.
Romney could win California.
There, I said it.
John Stodder,
I noted in the Santorum e-mail that weird logic the right has adopted lately: "If you want to win over independents, you need a hard-core conservative!" Why do they keep peddling that?
Because it's true:
People can be swayed to/by someone who solidly stands for something, not by some wishy-washy fabrication.
Santorum lost me when he endorsed Spectre after he himself was re-elected with Toomey's help.
Paddy O,
I've never been a Romney guy, but he's stuck it out without falling off to the side like the others, so he's getting the pick.
Jesus, man, he's stuck it out because he's got the money to do so. Proof?
John Huntsman's also still in the race!
Deal in reality, guys, please,...
People can be swayed to/by someone who solidly stands for something, not by some wishy-washy fabrication.
Sure, but gay-bashing isn't high on the electorate's list of priorities this year.
"I expect this reminder of God's disappearing act to be ignored by other believers, just I expect it to be ignored by the media and Bachmann herself."
Ha!
If you're going to have a sophisticated attack on faith, it's funny to use an example of something the Bible itself brings up almost throughout its entirety. God doesn't show up right when people want him to, or do all the stuff they want him to. Yeah, start in Genesis and keep going, you'll find a lot better examples than Bachman.
Maybe God doesn't like Bachmann for the same reasons other voters don't.
God isn't a vending machine, after all, no matter who is trying to put in the coins.
John Stodder said: I noted in the Santorum e-mail that weird logic the right has adopted lately: "If you want to win over independents, you need a hard-core conservative!" Why do they keep peddling that?
You know, I actually do think that that can be correct, up to a point. It's not really so much about the person being a "hard-core conservative" as it is about the person being solid and articulate in his or her positions. Not that I want to defend the professor on her McCain position, but recall what she said about how he didn't make the effective case for conservatism. McCain was a waffler who came across as weak on a lot of issues, and I think that really hurt him - it was associated with his being "moderate" but not exactly the same. Contrast him with someone like Reagan, who could clearly and firmly state his positions.
(This is in no way a support of Santorum, who does not make this case, where Romney, despite the flip-flopping, usually states his positions without appearing weak and equivocating. Bush, also fairly moderate, usually did the same, which earned him the reputation of being more conservative than he was, and, I think, also won him 2 terms.)
I'm babbling, but my point comes down to strength in conservatism being important, which is associated with being a hard-core conservative.
Again, you're imagining things:
Imagining what? That there are people on the left that don't like Obama, but hate the right more? Do you believe those people don't exist?
Paddy O,
If you're going to have a sophisticated attack on faith, it's funny to use an example of something the Bible itself brings up almost throughout its entirety. God doesn't show up right when people want him to, or do all the stuff they want him to. Yeah, start in Genesis and keep going, you'll find a lot better examples than Bachman.
No need:
God NEVER shows up.
I repeat:
Deal in reality, guys,...
"he's stuck it out because he's got the money to do so."
Crack, money certainly helps, and that's an important issue in the general election too, as Obama has all manner of money to spend, and hasn't had a primary to waste it on yet.
But, more than that, there's the manufactured scandals and/or unforced errors that have brought down other candidates. Romney just hasn't had those problems.
Again, though, I would have never picked him, and would still vote for Palin, but of the bunch left standing, I lean towards being okay with Romney.
Scott M,
Imagining what? That there are people on the left that don't like Obama, but hate the right more? Do you believe those people don't exist?
No, they do exist. But now they're demoralized, and let down, and politically empty. Plus, it's INDEPENDENTS - not liberals - who we need to sway.
Stop tripping.
I gotta go to work - stay in reality, people,...
I should add:
As difficult as that seems to be for you,...
Iowan Repubs must be odd when almost 50% voted for either Santorum or Paul.
No, they do exist. But now they're demoralized, and let down, and politically empty.
And they are still going to vote against the GOP, those that do vote. Sure, a small percentage will stay home, but the more "the most important election of our lifetimes" is trumpeted, by both sides, that percentage will shrink. Likewise, the bigger booster, if even a nose-holder, of Obamacare a person is, the greater the chance they will vote as a defensive measure.
Santorum is no conservative. He is Mike Huckabee all over again. He favors statist solutions to problems and the use of government authority to enforce morality. Santorum as president would be a disaster.
Crack,
God shows up. That's reality. That's my reality. That's the reality of so many people I know.
Sometimes he doesn't show up when or how we like. But sometimes he shows up even better than what we would have ever expected.
That's the trouble with talking about faith though. We can't really share the weight of our own experiences of reality.
You think you're right. I know you're wrong. God shows up. Indeed, I'm packing up my apartment right now, precisely because God showed up and opened up an amazing place to live, just when we really needed it.
I bet the people hereabouts have their own stories, and countless other stories.
You haven't experienced it (or called it what it is), so you're extroverting your reality to everyone else.
Sort of like what Bachman does, thinking her world is the one that matters most.
That being said, I still respect your honesty much more than so many other false expressions of false faith.
Paddy O,
Again, though, I would have never picked him, and would still vote for Palin, but of the bunch left standing, I lean towards being okay with Romney.
I'm going to say this one more time - your formulation of this is all wrong:
This is not a contest for who will be "okay" but for what we want.
I say Newt will give us what we want, so his negatives don't matter - I'll fight for the results he'll deliver and Romney won't.
They're worth fighting for.
We don't have room to maneuver anymore - it's truthfully now or never.
Laters,...
Well, we know how the religious right votes. But this didn't touch the INDEPENDENT VOTERS at all!
It's still the "funny Underwear Man" ... or worse.
And, it's the advantage Obama needs to win a second term.
How will 2012 look?
Perhaps, like 2004? Where Kerry lost. But the "win" went to Bush's empty head. And, he caused more havoc than good.
While no one on the right cars to blame McCain for anything. Heck, he's just another Bob Dole. But unlike Dole, McCain retained his senate seat.
I still think we're gonna have Donald Trump coming out as an Independent on May 21st. Sure. It will take everybody by surprise. (And, no, Sarah Palin won't be his veep pick.)
But, you bet, there's lots of voters out there who haven't been heard from, yet.
Although he too will be (falsely) smeared as "anti-choice," Romney is a much safer pick for the pro-aborts and for those who do not care how many millions of innocents get sacrificed for their own craven political expediency.
Romney will NOT fight for social issues and will be quite reliable in appointing Anthony Kennedy like moderate squishes to the Supreme Court. In fact, a Romney Administration would spend more time blasting and fighting fellow Republicans than it would spend taking on and stopping the Dems.
Really, a significant chunk of the GOP wants to make birth control a campaign issue? Santorum is a niche-of-a-niche candidate. The unifying anti-Romney candidate, if there is to be one, is still yet to be crowned.
I'm 42. The only likely conservative voters I know of in my extended family and friends that have mentioned social issues are all at least 54 or older. I don't know why that is, but that's what I've seen so far. Everyone else is firmly fixed on $$$. And why wouldn't we be? That's the real threat.
So, None of the Above wins in November?
Romney will NOT fight for social issues and will be quite reliable in appointing Anthony Kennedy like moderate squishes to the Supreme Court.
Just an observation: Anthony Kennedy was appointed by Ronald Reagan.
Seriously, though, anyone going into the 2012 elections caring about social issues is crazy. Economics and government growth: those are the pressing problems we face today.
Santorum also lost his Senate race because he didn't even live in Pennsylvania any more. His kids didn't go to school in PA. How can you represent a state you don't live in?
There were many reasons that Santorum was not re-elected, and none of them bode well for a Presidential Campaign.
We now have the race down to liberal Romney and conservative Santorum. The Big Government Republians and the media clearly want Romney. I believe regular Americans will rise up for Santorum who is a conservative real Christian man. The nation's soul hangs in the balance.
IMO this is exactly what the Dems will be happy to run against if Santorum wins - a VERY conservative GOP who will be raising the banner and reigniting the culture wars.
Call it concerned trolling if you want, but I think only Romney (or Huntsman) has a snowball's chance. And you conservatives seem deeply divided.
Who we really need to elect is the guy whose biggest claims to fame are --
--being an event planner
--enacting far-left legislation during his only term in office
--getting rich, not by running a company that actually creates tangible products or otherwise actually creating wealth, but by participating in the very industry that caused the economy to crash in 2008, manipulating existing assets and trafficking in artificially-bundled funds
--demonstrating his competency, influence, and leadership skills, after running for president for over six years, by managing to increase his level of support from 20-25 percent four years ago to 20-25 percent today
--laying low whenever a new issue or problem arises, waiting until he sees which way he thinks the political winds are blowing before taking a position, and in the process managing to have taken the opposite positions on most issues of consequence over the years
Yes, this is the guy we need to elect.
All of the candidates are going to be conservative on some things and not conservative on others. This was true of Ronald Reagan as well.
Reagan ran deficits as a percent of GDP that were the same as FDR during his first eight years in office. Reagan jacked up Social Security taxes. Reagan appointed O'Connor and Kennedy to the Supreme Court.
As governor of California, Reagan signed pro-abortion legislation and gun control laws.
There is no perfect conservative. You can look at any of these candidates records and find things that are not conservative and things that are conservative.
Bender,
Romney worked in private equity. He did not work on or for Wall Street. Private equity firms and private equity funds had nothing to do with the financial collapse. You need to become better informed. You can dislike Romney as much as you want, but you should do it based on facts, not on ignorance. Progressives can be careless, not conservatives. Don't be careless.
write_effort said: a significant chunk of the GOP wants to make birth control a campaign issue?
Has Santorum (or anyone) taken a position on birth control? (not abortion)? I'm honestly asking - if they have, I'm not familiar with it, and I'd be interested in knowing.
Lyssa-
I don't have a link, but Santorum has specifically said his anti-birth control stance is personal, and it would be ridiculous to try to make contraceptives illegal or not coverable by insurance.
You need a fiscal conservative or, at least, a fiscal competent.
Evidence that Santorum is either?
Not only that. He's an ex-Senator. That has to count for something. Against him.
I don't have a link, but Santorum has specifically said his anti-birth control stance is personal, and it would be ridiculous to try to make contraceptives illegal or not coverable by insurance.
Technically, shouldn't Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic, also be 100% personally against it?
Technically, shouldn't Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic, also be 100% personally against it?
Technically. Just as technically Reid is against abortion.
But Democrats only want to force their secular lifestyle choices upon us. They may be against contraception, but understand the importance of making it illegal to sell insurance that doesn't provide it with no copay. Because they don't want a theocracy. And it's perfectly secular to not impose any moral code, but to keep people from eating corn syrup and buying 100 watt lightbulbs.
That's a long way of saying, I think Dems like Pelosi think as long as there is no religious component to a behavior, it's perfect valid to legally compel it.
MayBee said...
Lyssa-
I don't have a link, but Santorum has specifically said his anti-birth control stance is personal, and it would be ridiculous to try to make contraceptives illegal or not coverable by insurance.
Under socialism, all personal beliefs are automatically contrued as ex post facto law threats.
Under their system, they want the whole man.
“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
18:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN7WfIZh690&feature=youtube_gdata
He goes on to state that while he is not running for "preacher," these are important "public policy issues."
No names, please said...
"The Iowa result is, again, a testament to the power a few preacher men have over their faithful flocks. In the bigger picture, Iowa is not very important at all."
It's quite encouraging for ecumenical progress, however, that they chose to make a Catholic their standard-bearer, albeit one who dissents on some of the practical issues with which evangelicals most strongly disagree.
Lyssa said...
"Whereas, what, Santorum would really kick Obama's butt? Really?"
You have to realize that many of the tea party types really believe that they represent "we the people," just like the occup people really believe that they represent the 99%. It's not rhetoric for them. They actually believe it. And if you believe that the tea party speaks for the vast majority of Americans, what conceivable sense could it make to nominate anyone but a true blue conservative, given how the vast majority of the country is absolutely pissed at Obama's socialist administration and yearns for a REAL CONSERVATIVE? It's not their analysis that's wrong, it's their premise.
shu said...
"Santorum is about theocracy."
If you wrote this with a straight face, you have no idea what a theocracy is.
Bender said...
"Romney will NOT fight for social issues and will be quite reliable in appointing Anthony Kennedy like moderate squishes to the Supreme Court."
Let's stipulate that you're correct. So what? The alternative is President Obama's second term, in which he will be absolutely reliable in appointing Ruth Ginsburg like liberal extremists to the Supreme Court. What kind of idiot voluntarily trades the frying pan for the fire?
write_effort said...
"Really, a significant chunk of the GOP wants to make birth control a campaign issue?"
They don't. The legality of birth control is a concern only to a small number of Catholics—a subset of a subset of a subset of GOP voters. It's not a ridiculous policy (it was once the law in most states) but teh Church's teaching on the use of birth control doesn't oblige the faithful on the point of the legality of birth control.
Scott M said...
"Technically, shouldn't Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic, also be 100% personally against it?"
I truly doubt Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic in anything but name.
Has Santorum (or anyone) taken a position on birth control?
Actual quote: "One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN7WfIZh690&feature=youtube_gdata
Start at 17:35 mark.
Chris said:
Santorum is no conservative. He is Mike Huckabee all over again. He favors statist solutions to problems and the use of government authority to enforce morality. Santorum as president would be a disaster.
Dittos
Santorum stated in an interview with CaffeinatedThoughts.com that the dangers of contraception are an important public policy issue (at the 18 minute mark on YouTube). He goes on at length about the results of weaking the procreative aspect of sex.
I posted a link earlier, but it was removed.
Obama's groundswell of support comes from the 47% that pay no taxes but collect government benefits. Add to that academia, the press, Hollywood, and some soccer moms, and voila!
And here's some reality for Crack: women won't vote for Newt. I would, but most won't.
We don't like crybabies and we don't like cheaters (except good-looking ones like Clinton).
Only a crybaby complains about activist judges and then sues Virginia to get on the ballot.
The alternative is President Obama's second term, in which he will be absolutely reliable in appointing Ruth Ginsburg like liberal extremists to the Supreme Court.
That's an argument to not vote for Obama.
But it is not an argument to vote for Romney.
If Romney is not going to fight and is instead going to appoint the same mushy moderates that have destroyed any legitimacy that the Court may have had, like Souter, Kennedy, et al., then the answer is to not vote for either one of them.
The argument to elect Romney esentially amounts to the lesser evil argument -- sure he's crap, but at least he's not as bad as Obama. That someone is not as bad as something worse is not a reason to vote for him. Doing the lesser of two evils is still doing evil.
No. I will not do it. Not again. Not yet again. That is the same BS argument that the GOP foists upon people year after year after year.
You know why there are no good conservatives available to run this year? Because the GOP told us for years that, instead of electing solid conservatives to governorships and Congress, we had to elect squishy moderates that appealed to independents.
The Republican establishment forcing us to choose between a douche and a crap sandwich each election is why we don't have any really good candidates for president.
Sigh. Do these tiny minority of anti-birth control people realize how much more difficult they make life for the rest of us who just want people to stop killing babies?
He's an ex-Senator. That has to count for something. Against him.
Well, unlike last time, when the choice was two sitting Senators (and look how swell that choice was!), at least he's an ex-Senator. One point in his favor. Against all the other many many points, the myriad, lengthy list of points, against him.
You know why there are no good conservatives available to run this year?
Because Rand Paul's dad was already running and he didn't want to be rude.
You have to realize that many of the tea party types really believe that they represent "we the people,"
That may or may not be true, but what's it got to do with Santorum? The Tea Party movement is about runaway government spending and growth. Santorum is one of the worst candidates in the race in both of those areas.
Which is why the quote about him being a "tea-party kind of guy" comes from a left-wing newspaper instead of from somebody affiliated with the Tea Party movement.
write_effort said...
"Santorum stated in an interview with CaffeinatedThoughts.com that the dangers of contraception are an important public policy issue (at the 18 minute mark on YouTube). He goes on at length about the results of weaking the procreative aspect of sex."
I don't have a problem with him believing that contraception is bad, and making a public case for that position. I don't have a problem with him believing that public policy ought to be structured in such a manner that it discourages premarital sex rather than just "unprotected" premarital sex. There's a wide gap between doing such things and trying to overturn Griswold.
Bender said...
"[simon said that the alternative is President Obama's second term, in which he will be absolutely reliable in appointing Ruth Ginsburg like liberal extremists to the Supreme Court.] That's an argument to not vote for Obama. But it is not an argument to vote for Romney."
Not voting for Romney is voting for Obama. Obama is going to win unless the GOP nominates someone who can win and gets him elected, and only Romney fits that bill.
"No. I will not do it. Not again. Not yet again. That is the same BS argument that the GOP foists upon people year after year after year."
Year after year, people continue to foist on us the argument that gravity pulls us down toward the center of massive objects. Why won't they ever say something different?
"You know why there are no good conservatives available to run this year? Because the GOP told us for years that, instead of electing solid conservatives to governorships and Congress, we had to elect squishy moderates that appealed to independents."
To win the Presidency, we have to nominate candidates who appeal to independents. That's simple math. In states where you can elect solid conservatives, run solid conservatives. But you can't win elections in states like Wisconsin with candidates who appeal only to solid conservatives. I'm sorry if I'm the first to break this to you but we aren't a majority.
Lyssa said...
"Sigh. Do these tiny minority of anti-birth control people realize how much more difficult they make life for the rest of us who just want people to stop killing babies?"
They believe what they believe and that's fine so lnog as they're practical about it. My problem is with people who have the same mentality about it as Bender—folks who refuse to take baby steps forward on abortion. They refuse to vote for a bill that has a rape/incest exception because they're more concerned about keeping their own hands clean ("I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils!") than they are about doing something oractical to help. The best trick the devil ever played on the world was convincing it he didn't exist, but the second best trick he played was convincing people to be so prissy about "the lesser evil" that they let enormous evils slide rather than doing something about it.
shu said...
Santorum is about theocracy.
Really? Santorum wants to set up a theocracy or would like one? Do you have proof of this?
Simon said: I don't have a problem with him believing that contraception is bad, and making a public case for that position. I don't have a problem with him believing that public policy ought to be structured in such a manner that it discourages premarital sex rather than just "unprotected" premarital sex. There's a wide gap between doing such things and trying to overturn Griswold.
I generally agree with you, but I'm going to go ahead and take the position that I do have a problem with a politician making the case that contraception is wrong, even absent a specific case that it should be illegal.
I don't like that position I'm taking, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of people, probably a majority of the country, simply cannot comprehend the difference between saying something is wrong and making it illegal. It's less of a problem if the person doesn't have a policy-related role, such as a religious leader, but when it comes from a politician, it sounds bad.
I'm not saying that Santorum, even if he had the full ability to do so, would make contraception illegal. What bothers me is that the pro-abortion folks can look at him and make the case that he would and wants that. They can make that case so well that they can (and do) say that the anti-abortion goal is to eradicate BC, and they can direct the conversation away from the horror that is abortion, thus hurting the ability to make that case against abortion.
Politicians should send out flash emails.
I can just hear Elvis belting our "It's Now or Never" as you open it ...
I don't have a problem with him believing that contraception is bad, and making a public case for that position. I don't have a problem with him believing that public policy ought to be structured in such a manner that it discourages premarital sex rather than just "unprotected" premarital sex. There's a wide gap between doing such things and trying to overturn Griswold.
"Public Policy."
Hideous words, indeed.
Cracky - "While I'm not sold on this Santorum message either - and I kinda like the guy - your "logic" is even worse:
Who wants four more years of what we've had?
So where is this groundswell of support for Obama supposed to come from?
You talk nonsense,...
===========
One of the dumbest things to emerge recently in conservatives is the faith-based belief that the public HUNGERS for someone as far-right as possible...combined with a twin faith-based belief that Obama, Harry Reid are so unpopular that NOW IS THE TIME!! to nominate a "true believer".
We saw the wreckage of Sharron Angle who went down in Goldwater-like flames of Purity.
No, the country does NOT hunger for a Goldwater. Before she quit, (I should specify quit being considered a 2012 Prez Prospect..) right wing Goddess Palin was polling 26 points behind Obama in several national polls. Gingrich was about 20 points behind. (Which is a more accurate reflection of his national prospects than the not-Romney delusions of right-wingers in search of the Hero in Newtie.
One of the dumbest things to emerge recently in conservatives is the faith-based belief that the public HUNGERS for someone as far-right as possible
You mentioning it here today is the first I've heard of this. Do you have some backup?
Who writes the idiotic Obama campaign e-mails about extremism??
Could be any of a number of people commenting here (especially on their apocalyptic alarms that Santorum wants a government ban on contraception).
McCullough - Reagan ran deficits as a percent of GDP that were the same as FDR during his first eight years in office. Reagan jacked up Social Security taxes. Reagan appointed O'Connor and Kennedy to the Supreme Court.
As governor of California, Reagan signed pro-abortion legislation and gun control laws.
There is no perfect conservative.
==============
Just like FDR has morphed into America's savior, and JFK became a bedwetting liberal enshrined in Camelot - the "narrative" of Saint Ronald Reagan has substantially altered by his supporters.
Then for the next 40 years after they go - voters are "treated" to pols endlessly saying how much like FDR, JFK, or Reagan they are...and we hear the narrative of how the nation hungers to go back in time and have the country run "just like" Holy FDR did, the King of Camelot did, or Saint Ronnie did.
We still have another dozen years of hearing how America would be perfect if we could only ignore the last 30 years and go back to 1980...
McCullough was actually a little generous with Reagan - Of particular interest is the “Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982,” the largest of Reagan’s tax increases, and generally considered the largest tax increase — as a percentage of the economy — in modern American history. Though people more often cite the 1986 FICA boost and the elimination of tax shelters that allowed many of the superwealthy to pay no Fed income taxes (like Reagan as his filings showed for most of the 70s)
In fact, between 1982 and 1984, Reagan raised taxes four times, and as Bruce Bartlett has explained more than once, Reagan raised taxes 12 times during his eight years in office.
Add that Reagan pushed Amnesty for illegals through. And for 8 years ran deficits that were as large as a percent of GNP since pre-WWII FDR. (economists except WWII deficits as extraordinary and not originating in normal gov't taxing and budgeting).
It does get bad when the narrative becomes so accepted that the King of Camelot is credited with royal love of the Negro and the full suite of affirmative action benefits - even though he sicc'd the FBI to do warrantless monitoring on MLK and other 'trouble makers' 24/7 and JFK personally thought the problem of black poverty was as much from black stupidity, criminality, and laziness as from 'discrimination".
And when the Reagan narrative becomes so simplistic with shallow conservatives that "tax cuts and big deficits creates jobs" becomes enshrined as dogma. And "freedom for the plutocrats of Wall Street to do as they please unregulated" - becomes new conservative dogma Saint Ronnie decreed it be so!!
especially on their apocalyptic alarms that Santorum wants a government ban on contraception
Americans overwhelmingly view contraception of a good thing. The same is true of Republicans in particular.
There are, therefore, exactly two reasons why Santorum is yammering on about his desire to "talk about" the "dangers" of contraception:
1. He wants to restrict contraception.
2. He's a moron who decided to tell the American people his loony opinions despite them being completely irrelevant to his campaign.
The correct answer is "1", but "2" doesn't actually make him sound any better.
Dear Dummy
It wasnt moderation that caused McCain to lose last time, it was you and your fellow travelors. It is extremists like Palin who scared away the moderate voters into Obama's camp (that and the fact that after 8 years of Republican rule we had a failed economy and two wars and large deficits).
If you want to win, convince people that you are not nuts but willing to do whatever works to solve our problems. Be a problem solver and not a mess maker. Or show us that you learned nothing from 2008.
Cedarford wrote: We saw the wreckage of Sharron Angle who went down in Goldwater-like flames of Purity.
=============
Goldwater lost by something like 38% to Johnson's 61%
Angle lost by something like 6%. Not even Reid was gloating, but Cedarford does.
Face it Cedarford, you've had it in for the Tea Party since day one. You've railed against every single idea they've raised, every single positive shred of grassroots energy they've given off, and especially against every female candidate they offered up.
There's something inherent in the Tea Party which you loathe. What is it, exactly?
Scott, Chickenlittle, he may have it in for the tea party, but that doesn't make him wrong. For once , I agree with him. Not about the tea party generally, I mean, but as I said above, there are a lot of folks in the tea party who believe that they represent untold multitudes, and that those untold multitudes are yearning for a real conservative candidate. That's basically what Cedarford said above, and he's right. He's also right, I think, that among many conservatives (especially among those who tend to mistake themselves and their peer group for the views of America at large) there is a "belief that Obama, Harry Reid[, et al] are so unpopular that NOW IS THE TIME!! to nominate a 'true believer,'" because those few Americans who aren't themselves conservatives are so desperate to get rid of Obama that they'll vote for anyone to do it.
The reality is that the tea party represents a subset of the Republican electorate (who knows how large?), which is itself a minority of an electorate that, with some state-by-state variance, comprises roughly equal numbers of Democrats, Republicans, and "independents." Tea partiers + non-TP Republicans !> Republicans! That's no math at all. To win, the GOP candidate must appeal to independents, a group that comprises a large number of self-deluding Democrats, a lot of moderates, and very few people for whom the GOP is simply too milquetoast. Simple math says that in the average state, a GOP candidate appeals to moderates or s/he loses. Yet folks like DaneCounty abound, and they prove Cedarford's point.
Revenant said...
"Americans overwhelmingly view contraception of a good thing. The same is true of Republicans in particular. There are, therefore, exactly two reasons why Santorum is yammering on about his desire to "talk about" the "dangers" of contraception: 1. He wants to restrict contraception. 2. He's a moron who decided to tell the American people his loony opinions despite them being completely irrelevant to his campaign."
There's nothing loony about it. Catholics don't believe in contraception. Nor is it loony to believe that public policy should be structured to promote moral behavior and discourage immmoral behavior, and it's not even loony to believe (although I would argue that it shouldn't be done in the case of contraception) that some immoral behavior should be proscribed by law.
Pragmatist said...
"It wasnt moderation that caused McCain to lose last time, it was you and your fellow travelors. It is extremists like Palin who scared away the moderate voters into Obama's camp…."
Two wrongs don't make a right, and while Dane's analysis is flawed, yours isn't correct either. What pushed the moderate voters who were still on the fence—one must acknowledge that independents were already leaning toward Obama for reasons we don't need to get into today—into Obama's camp was McCain's feckless performance, especially when the financial crisis hit, coupled with the media's ferocious and wildly successful campaign to convince Americans that Sarah Palin was the devil in nice shoes.
@Simon: First, thanks for your thoughtful response.
It seems to me that Romney's problem is that he cannot generate enough enthusiasm sua sponte. If he does, show me.
I argued on Twitter as long ago as a year that the Tea Party (or what's left of it) needed to join forces with Romney. The defeat of Obama will surely not happen with one side trying to marginalize the other. It just won't happen. It may even be a nefarious plan.
I respectfully disagree with your tarring of some Tea Party leaders as religious extremists--Palin especially. The problem is that in some people's minds, all personal beliefs are automatically construed as ex post facto legal threats. Despite whatever personal feelings Bachmann or Santorum may have about people's predilections, they are not calling for pogroms or vendettas against them.
Loathers and haters could do everyone a favor by providing examples where candidates (any candidate) actively legislate to control behavior. Otherwise it just looks like people are pissed-off because they're not getting approval and warm hugs.
chickenlittle said...
"@Simon: First, thanks for your thoughtful response. It seems to me that Romney's problem is that he cannot generate enough enthusiasm sua sponte. If he does, show me."
I think Romney's problem is that a large percentage of Republicans don't really like him, and even among those who aren't distinctly hostile to him, he doesn't generate much enthusiasm, as you point out. I agree with that.
"I argued on Twitter as long ago as a year that the Tea Party (or what's left of it) needed to join forces with Romney. The defeat of Obama will surely not happen with one side trying to marginalize the other. It just won't happen."
I completely agree with that, too.
"I respectfully disagree with your tarring of some Tea Party leaders as religious extremists--Palin especially."
Wait, what? Where did I do that?
Simon wrote: Wait, what? Where did I do that?
6:46: He's also right, I think, that among many conservatives (especially among those who tend to mistake themselves and their peer group for the views of America at large) there is a "belief that Obama, Harry Reid[, et al] are so unpopular that NOW IS THE TIME!! to nominate a 'true believer,'" because those few Americans who aren't themselves conservatives are so desperate to get rid of Obama that they'll vote for anyone to do it.
I was conflating you with Cedarford and I apologize for that. But I also was folding in months (years) of tweet-watching--including yours. But don't take it personally. I was directing my remarks more at Cedarford.
There's nothing loony about it. Catholics don't believe in contraception
The second sentence is unrelated to the first. "Catholics believe it" does not contradict "it is insane".
Besides, most Catholics DO believe in, and use, contraception. I guess you could say "those aren't real Catholics", but try telling them that.
For the record, neither my 18:46 comment nor anything else I've said here or anywhere else, ever, whether separately or cumulatively, was intended to tar Tea Party leaders or Sarah as religious extremists.
All I said above was that many conservatives and many conservatives overestimate the degree to which America at large agrees with their views, and from that faulty premise make the entirely rational mistake of thinking that America at large is waiting for the same true blue conservative candidate that they are.
Are you getting that from "true believer"? I didn't understand that to be a reference to religious belief but political—"true believer"="a rock-ribbed supporter of 100% of the goals, methods, and views of the tea part.
Revenant said...
"The second sentence is unrelated to the first. 'Catholics believe it' does not contradict 'it is insane.'"
Sure. I'm sure there are Catholic birthers; their being Catholic doesn't make them sane. But "the Catholic Church teaches it" contradicts "it is insane."
"Besides, most Catholics DO believe in, and use, contraception. I guess you could say 'those aren't real Catholics,' but try telling them that."
I do. If they are in dissent from Humanae Vitae, they need to reconcile themselves to it and get to a confessional—rapidly. I've heard the same stories you have, seen the same numbers, but I just don't believe them. Are there soi-disant Catholics who are openly in dissent from Humanae Vitae? You bet. Are there Catholics using birth control? You bet. Are there Catholics using birth control who really don't know in their hearts that what they're doing is wrong? You bet. But "most"? Doubt it. I think those numbers are cooked by people who don't agree with the teaching.
Carol_Herman,
It's still the "funny Underwear Man" ... or worse. And, it's the advantage Obama needs to win a second term.
The first comment after I leave and it's a reiteration of the same tired argument - we aren't going to beat a proven loser. Incredible.
Scott M,
I'm 42. The only likely conservative voters I know of in my extended family and friends that have mentioned social issues are all at least 54 or older. I don't know why that is, but that's what I've seen so far. Everyone else is firmly fixed on $$$. And why wouldn't we be? That's the real threat.
Older people care about social issues because they are mature enough to understand a presidential election is NOT a one issue proposition. Say you focus exclusively on electing a money man, and then a true social crisis comes up - what have you done? You've fucked yourself, that's what. And that's EXACTLY what you're planning on doing with Romney.
Lyssa,
Sigh. Do these tiny minority of anti-birth control people realize how much more difficult they make life for the rest of us who just want people to stop killing babies?
Being in the I-want-people-to-stop-thinking-with-their-privates crowd, I don't know,...
Cedarford,
One of the dumbest things to emerge recently in conservatives is the faith-based belief that the public HUNGERS for someone as far-right as possible...combined with a twin faith-based belief that Obama, Harry Reid are so unpopular that NOW IS THE TIME!! to nominate a "true believer".
I was thinking about this thread today and it did occur to me that the communication problem we're having is that some of you guys DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING, and this comment is evidence that's the case - it's only half right:
I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, EVER, EVER said "the public HUNGERS for someone as far-right as possible," and you're admitting you're delusional to imagine I did - in a "faith-based" manner or otherwise.
But the "faith-based belief" charge is the worst - just like Ann recently claiming I'm leading a "cult" of hypermasculinity.
When are some of you going to stop trying this reverse-smear of me with my own topics - when you KNOW I'm into no such things?
Why can't you just admit you can't keep up with my reasoning?
Oh yeah - because then you'd also have to admit you're not that smart yourselves. My bad.
I sit here, reading all this conventional wisdom and it's heartbreaking - especially from Ann - because you're all supposed to be so smart. Ann was top of her fucking class and the best she could come up with is THE CRACK EMCEE IS A CULTIST?
That approach is so lame she should be offering to give her degree back - or her college should be demanding it.
And the idea that I - a person who has made his feelings about "beliefs" very clear for YEARS now - should be charged with harboring a "faith-based belief" is just as ignorant, if not more. I'm talking serious bottom-of-the-barrel stupidity.
You really need to grow up.
Now, instead of saying, "the public HUNGERS for someone as far-right as possible," I'm saying that's the answer to our problem (whether they get it or not) and, if we elect such a person as our standard bearer, the public will be boxed into going along with that decision because they know - yes - four more years of Obama and Harry Reid spells obvious disaster.
Back in the day, nobody thought Reagan could be president - except he faced Jimmy Carter. That's where we are today. Nobody thought Carter was a bad guy (at the time) but they did know we couldn't endure four more years under his "leadership," and that's where we are now with Obama.
It's the biggest open secret in politics.
So go on pretending we have to pick another loser to replace him - when we don't. We can pick someone who can actually accomplish what's necessary - whether the general public "likes" him on Facebook or not - and, if we don't, we're fucked.
That's all I'm saying,...
if santorum should, somehow, become the candidate then obama wins. there are SO many of santorum's past statements that are mis-informed, i'll-informed, willfully ignorant, often loony, and sometimes downright hateful that there will be ample ammunition to make him a national laughingstock and worse.
one thing that can be said for romney is that his baggage is light. you can only beat up on him for 'flip-flopping', state healthcare, and mormonism so much before they become superfluous attacks.
Simon,
Scott, Chickenlittle, he may have it in for the tea party, but that doesn't make him wrong. For once , I agree with him. Not about the tea party generally, I mean, but as I said above, there are a lot of folks in the tea party who believe that they represent untold multitudes, and that those untold multitudes are yearning for a real conservative candidate.
That's not true. I attended my last Tea party event on New Years and I didn't meet one person who fit that profile. Tea Partiers are people looking at problems and trying to solve them - they are not ideologues by a long shot.
They do recognize that conservatism is better than liberalism, but beyond that, there's not a word you're saying that's true. Like this smearing of me as a "cultist," when are you guys going to get out of your own head's projections and deal with reality? Hardly anything said about the Tea Party is true, and it's been that way from the day it emerged - when is some truth going to come out of you guys?
Am I the last honest man around here?
el polacko,
one thing that can be said for romney is that his baggage is light. you can only beat up on him for 'flip-flopping', state healthcare, and mormonism so much before they become superfluous attacks.
Nobody said Romney can't win - we're saying he shouldn't.
I find it incredible, as you guys keep displaying conventional wisdom at it's finest, you can't even articulate any argument but your own - which can be found in any nightly newscast nation-wide.
You're a bunch of parrots, and it's pathetic.
ut "the Catholic Church teaches it" contradicts "it is insane."
Not even slightly.
The Crack Emcee said...
"[Simon said that there are a lot of folks in the tea party who believe that they represent untold multitudes, and that those untold multitudes are yearning for a real conservative candidate.] That's not true. I attended my last Tea party event on New Years and I didn't meet one person who fit that profile. ¶ Tea Partiers are people looking at problems and trying to solve them - they are not ideologues by a long shot."
Tea partiers are, in the main, people who believe that we have problems to solve: That liberalism is a problem to solve, or that liberalism has created a number of problems for us to solve. Those are ideological claims. They are ideological positions with which I happen to agree, but they are ideological positions. If you disagree, the ticket price is the name of a tea party group supporting Democratic candidates. Name one.
"Like this smearing of me as a cultist"
Who called you a cultist?
"when are you guys"
Who's this "you guys" kimo sabe?
"get out of your own head's projections and deal with reality"
Kind of my point. The reality is that a unified GOP needs roughly 18% of independents to win, varying a little by state. They won't get it by nominating someone unappealing to those independents who are up for grabs.
Hardly anything said about the Tea Party is true, and it's been that way from the day it emerged - when is some truth going to come out of you guys?
Crack,
None of these candidates is a perfect conservative. Perry has probably the most consistently conservative record. But I'm astonished you think Gingrich is better than Romney. Gingrich thinks he has the answers to all the problems. He is a faddish thinker with no discipline. He's too lazy to build a campaign organization to make a serious run. Part of the reason Reagan won is that he had a good personality. He was like able. Gingrich is extrremely dislike able. He's arrogant, brusque, and a whiner. His personality alone will ensure Obama's reelection.
If you disagree, the ticket price is the name of a tea party group supporting Democratic candidates.
You falsely assume there are small-government liberals running for office as Democrats. There aren't, so the lack of Tea Party support for liberal candidates is unsurprising.
On the other hand there are plenty of big-government conservatives who have drawn the ire of Tea Partiers: Orin Hatch, John Boehner, and Richard Lugar are obvious examples.
Revenant said...
"You falsely assume there are small-government liberals running for office as Democrats."
No, I don't. On the one hand, there are no "small-government liberals," which, given the modern connotation of "liberal" is a contradiction in terms. But even if I did, that wouldn't undercut my point. If the tea party would back small government liberals (or an abominable snowman, cars that run on rainbows and unicorn kisses, or attractive Victoria's Secret model), that's great, but it underscores my point: They would do so because such a candidate would share their belief that government is too big. Well, that government (or at least outsized government) is a problem, and a concomitant belief that shrinking it is the solution, are ideological claims. Again, they're claims that I happen to agree with—I'm not faulting them or disputing them—but they are ideological claims.
On the other hand there are plenty of big-government conservatives who have drawn the ire of Tea Partiers: Orin Hatch, John Boehner, and Richard Lugar are obvious examples.
I thought Carol_Herman was the only person who had a problem with Boehner. She even got over it, I think.
Simon,
If you disagree, the ticket price is the name of a tea party group supporting Democratic candidates. Name one.
Who's this "you guys" kimo sabe?
You went from a line of questioning I find interesting (whether finding liberalism is a problem can be limited to ideology after 50 years) to one I find cheap, juvenile, and silly (semantic criticism when merely engaging with colloquial language) and did it so fast, I lost interest.
mccullough,
I'm astonished you think Gingrich is better than Romney.
List Gingrich's political accomplishments on one side of paper and Romney's on the other. Which is longer? Which is more substantial? Which has inspired people - people who don't even like Gingrich - to say he changed American politics "forever"?
Do you seriously think I'm going to choose a man who, before RomneyCare, was best known for managing a sporting event - over a man of true political achievements?
Are you serious about politics? About our country? I don't think so - listen to yourself:
Gingrich thinks he has the answers to all the problems.
Oooh - that's a bad trait for the guy you hire to fix shit, huh? Better to hire an incompetent, right? Or a guy who thinks he's an incompetent? President Dumbass - that's who we need,...
He is a faddish thinker with no discipline.
Who gave us a list of political accomplishments the length of my arm. I know - you're talking about his mouth - but guess what? I say he can talk as much as he wants while fixing the problems of this country.
He's too lazy to build a campaign organization to make a serious run.
Oh - performing in your dog-and-pony show is more important than just putting someone in office who's proven he can do what's necessary. I get it now,...
Part of the reason Reagan won is that he had a good personality. He was likeable. Gingrich is extrremely dislikeable.
He's running for president - not your Facebook friend. Either we have serious problems to deal with or this is actually a try out for Miss Congeniality - your choice.
He's arrogant, brusque, and a whiner.
Hey, man, it ain't easy dealing with the pathology of delusion day-in-and-day-out. You know, like people who say, "Wow - we have incredible problems in this country - the answer is to look for someone LIKABLE!!!"
His personality alone will ensure Obama's reelection.
No, that will be the result of extreme immaturity - and it won't be Gingrich's,...
The Crack Emcee said...
"You went from a line of questioning I find interesting (whether finding liberalism is a problem can be limited to ideology after 50 years) to one I find cheap, juvenile, and silly (semantic criticism when merely engaging with colloquial language) and did it so fast, I lost interest."
Great way to distract attention from your inability to answer the point! I don't think anyone noticed. Doubtless they were all distracted by the faux outrage; way to go.
Crack,
What are Gingrich's accomplishments? Bill Clinton handed Gingrich his ass. Clinton ran in 1992 on welfare reform and got the welfare reform he wanted. Clinton jacked up income taxes and cut capital gains taxes, which helped lead to almost a balanced budget. If Gingrich weren't such a blowhard, he'd have gotten more credit. But Clinton gets it. Gingrich got thrown out of the Speakers chair by his colleagues and then quit his Congressional seat to work in the private sector as an influence peddler. Did you see Gingrich's speech last night. He was a total whiner. Again. Romney is handing Gingrich his ass just like Bill Clnton did. Gingrich is a clown. He's going nowhere. You need to shift to another candidate.
No, that will be the result of extreme immaturity - and it won't be Gingrich's,...
It doesn't matter. The end result is the same.
Post a Comment