First – there is a reason why Republicans seem doomed to losing presidential elections. While the country maybe center-right it is not hard right. “Put an aspirin between your knees” if you are a woman – is the type of brain fart that guarantees us the reelection of Obama. As one rapper said (paraphrasing) “I don’t want to be governed by a middle aged former pot head hippie, and I also do not want a Bible thumpin’ preacher either”.
by Michael D. Tanner
With his mandate that all employers, including religiously affiliated institutions such as Catholic hospitals and charities, provide workers with health insurance that covers contraceptives, President Obama handed Republicans a terrific opportunity to talk about the growing intrusiveness of government.
This is, after all, an administration that wants to dictate what foods we eat, what lightbulbs we use, what cars we drive, even how our toilets flush.
Yet Republicans are in the process of fumbling this opportunity away by turning what should be a discussion of government power into an argument about contraception.
For a long time, it was said that Democrats are terrified that somewhere someone is making money, and Republicans are terrified that someone somewhere is having fun. And with this issue — as so often seems the case when the subject turns to sex — Republicans seem determined to prove this stereotype true.
The most obvious case was the suggestion by Foster Friess, the biggest funder of Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s super PAC, that the best contraception was for women to put an aspirin between their knees. Friess now suggests that he was joking. Yet Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, among others, have joined in with this line of argument, suggesting that contraception was unnecessary if women just exercised “self-restraint.” Running through the Republican outrage over this issue has been a subcurrent that contraceptives are, in Santorum’s words, “a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
Setting aside the fact that even married women use contraceptives, why are Republicans using this issue to lecture us on morality?
The problem with the contraceptive mandate is not the contraceptive part — it’s the mandate. The new health-care law requires every employer with 50 or more employees to provide their workers with health insurance. It also requires every American who doesn’t receive health insurance through work or a government program to buy insurance themselves or face a fine.
[.....]
In this case, the benefit we are talking about is contraceptives, and it has sparked particular outrage because it will force religious institutions to pay, even indirectly, for a benefit that they find morally repugnant. But it is hardly the only benefit that the new health-care law mandates. Among other benefits, your policy must now include mental health benefits, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, prescription drugs, dental and vision care for children and a host of other services. You may not want those benefits, and they may make your insurance more expensive, but it is no longer your choice. The government will now decide for you. Your choice of deductibles and co-payments will also be restricted.
This debate has nothing to do with access to birth control. Contraceptives are legal. There is nothing that prevents any woman who wants contraceptives from purchasing them. Most insurance plans already do so, and when they don’t, women can purchase a rider that provides the additional coverage.
[.....]
This should provide Republicans with an opening to discuss the arrogance of a government that presumes to know better than we do how to run our lives. Yet too many Republicans seem to see this as an opportunity to tell us how they would run our lives instead. Both sides in this debate are contemptuous of our ability to make our own decisions.
Most Americans would prefer that the government simply leave us alone. They do not want the president to be our national employee benefits administrator, nor do they want him to be our preacher-in-chief.
Republicans need to learn the difference.
by James TarantoIf you’re a Republican in New York or another big city, you may be anxious or even terrified at the prospect that Rick Santorum, the supposedly unelectable social conservative, may win the GOP presidential nomination. Jeffrey Bell would like to set your mind at ease.Social conservatism, Mr. Bell argues in his forthcoming book, “The Case for Polarized Politics,” has a winning track record for the GOP. “Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964,” he observes. “The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections.”
The Democrats who won, including even Barack Obama in 2008, did not play up social liberalism in their campaigns. In 1992 Bill Clinton was a death-penalty advocate who promised to “end welfare as we know it” and make abortion “safe, legal and rare.” Social issues have come to the fore on the GOP side in two of the past six presidential elections—in 1988 (prison furloughs, the Pledge of Allegiance, the ACLU) and 2004 (same-sex marriage). “Those are the only two elections since Reagan where the Republican Party has won a popular majority,” Mr. Bell says. “It isn’t coincidental.”
Mr. Bell, 68, is an unlikely tribune for social conservatism. His main interest has always been economics. He was “an early supply-sider” who worked on Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaigns of 1976 and 1980 and Jack Kemp’s in 1988. In 1978 he ran an anti-tax campaign for the U.S. Senate in New Jersey, defeating Republican incumbent Clifford Case in the primary but losing to Democrat Bill Bradley.
Even now his day job is to advocate for the gold standard at the American Principles Project. But he’s been interested in social issues since the 1980s, when “it became increasingly clear to me . . . that social issues were beginning to be very important in comparison to economic issues,” in part because “Reaganomics worked so well that the Democrats . . . kind of retired the economic issues.”
In Mr. Bell’s telling, social conservatism is both relatively new and uniquely American, and it is a response to aggression, not an initiation of it. The left has had “its center of gravity in social issues” since the French Revolution, he says. “Yes, the left at that time, with people like Robespierre, was interested in overthrowing the monarchy and the French aristocracy. But they were even more vehemently in favor of bringing down institutions like the family and organized religion. In that regard, the left has never changed. . . . I think we’ve had a good illustration of it in the last month or so.”
He means the ObamaCare mandate that religious institutions must provide employee insurance for contraceptive services, including abortifacient drugs and sterilization procedures, even if doing so would violate their moral teachings. “You would think that once the economy started looking a little better, Obama would want to take a bow . . . but instead all of a sudden you have this contraception flap. From what I can find out about it, it wasn’t a miscalculation. They knew that the Catholic Church and other believers were going to push back against this thing. . . . They were determined to push it through, because it’s their irreplaceable ideological core. . . . The left keeps putting these issues into the mix, and they do it very deliberately, and I think they do it as a matter of principle.”
Another example: “In the lame-duck session of the last Congress, when the Democrats had their last [House] majority . . . what was their biggest priority? Well, they let the Bush tax cuts be renewed for another couple of years, but what they did get through was gays in the military. . . . It keeps coming back because it’s the agenda of the left. They’re not going to leave these issues alone.”
American social conservatism, Mr. Bell says, began in response to the sexual revolution, which since the 1960s has been “the biggest agenda item and the biggest success story of the left.” That was true in Western Europe and Japan too, but only in America did a socially conservative opposition arise.
The roots of social conservatism, he maintains, lie in the American Revolution. “Nature’s God is the only authority cited in the Declaration of Independence. . . . The usual [assumption] is, the U.S. has social conservatism because it’s more religious. . . . My feeling is that the very founding of the country is the natural law, which is God-given, but it isn’t particular to any one religion. . . . If you believe that rights are unalienable and that they come from God, the odds are that you’re a social conservative.”
The rise of the tea-party movement heartened many libertarian conservatives, who saw it as leading the Republican Party away from social conservatism. Mr. Bell acknowledges that the tea party is distinct from social conservatism, but he also argues that the two have the same intellectual and political roots:
“I think the tea party is an ally of social conservatism, because it also seems to go back to that idea in the Founding. . . . The tea party brings absolute values, normative values, to a whole set of issues where they really weren’t present, namely economics and the size of government.” Another commonality is that both arose in reaction to an aggressive left.
The populist nature of social conservatism perplexes liberals, who think less-affluent Americans ought to side with the party of statist economics. The libertarian social scientist Charles Murray presents a more sophisticated variant of the puzzle in his new book, “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.” Mr. Murray shows that upper-middle-class Americans lead far more conservative lives than the less affluent do, by such measures as marriage, illegitimacy, churchgoing and crime.
Yet Mr. Bell notes that social conservatism is largely a working-class phenomenon: “Middle America does have more children than elite America, and they vote socially conservative, even though they might not necessarily be behaving that way in their personal life. They may be overwhelmed by the sexual revolution and its cultural impacts.”
Mr. Bell squares that circle by arguing that social conservatism is “aspirational” and “driven by a sense in Middle America that the kind of cultural atmosphere we have, the kind of incentives, the example set by government, is something that has to be pushed back against.” Mr. Murray urges liberal elites to stop being nonjudgmental—to “preach what they practice.” To hear Mr. Bell tell it, they should listen instead.
Mr. Murray’s book focuses on whites so as to avoid both the confounding variables and the controversies around race. Mr. Bell, for his part, sees in social conservatism opportunities for the GOP to expand its appeal among minority communities. “Latino voters tend to be more socially conservative,” Mr. Bell says, noting that in 2008 they backed California’s Proposition 8, which overturned a state Supreme Court ruling establishing same-sex marriage, by 53% to 47%. Non-Hispanic whites narrowly opposed the measure.
[......]
Even without immediate gains among minority voters, Mr. Bell sees social issues as the path to a GOP majority in 2012. They account for the George W. Bush-era red-blue divide, which Mr. Bell says endures—and, he adds, red has the advantage: “There was one state in 2000 that Bush carried that I would say was socially left of center, and that was New Hampshire,” the only state that flipped to John Kerry four years later. “By 2004, every state—all 31 states that Bush carried—were socially conservative states.” Those states now have 292 electoral votes, with 270 sufficient for a majority.
By contrast, not all the Kerry states are socially liberal. “The swing vote in the Midwest is socially conservative and less conservative economically,” Mr. Bell says, so that “social conservatism is more likely to be helpful than economic conservatism.”
Among states that last voted Republican in 1988 or earlier, he classifies two, Michigan and Pennsylvania, as socially conservative, and two more, Minnesota and Wisconsin, as “mildly” so. That adds up to 35 states, with 348 electoral votes, in which social conservatism is an advantage. A socially liberal Republican nominee might win more votes in California and New York—places where the GOP has declined as the country has become more polarized—but his prospects of carrying either would still be minuscule.
[......]
Mr. Santorum is the most consistent and unapologetic social conservative in the race, but Mr. Bell rejects the common claim that he places too strong an emphasis on social issues: “I think that’s unfair to Santorum. He goes out of his way to say that he has an economic platform, he isn’t just about social issues.”
He notes that on NBC’s “Meet the Press” last weekend, host David Gregory opened his interview with the candidate by asking a series of questions about social issues, one of which he prefaced by saying that such issues “have come . . . to define your campaign.”
Mr. Santorum disputed the premise: “It’s not what’s defining my campaign. I would say that what’s defining my campaign is going out and talking about liberty, talking about economic growth, talking about getting manufacturing jobs back here to this country, trying to grow this economy to make sure that everybody in America can participate in it.”
This exchange, like many other Santorum interviews, can be seen as a synecdoche of the liberal-conservative social-issue dynamic Mr. Bell describes. To the extent that social issues have “come to define” Mr. Santorum’s campaign, it is in substantial part because liberal interviewers like Mr. Gregory have kept pushing them. If Mr. Bell is right, Mr. Santorum should end up benefiting politically, including in November if he is the nominee.
But t what about voters who don’t make a high priority of social issues, who aren’t unwilling to vote for a social conservative but might be put off by a candidate who is—or is made to appear—a moralistic busybody? “The key thing along that line is the issue of coercion,” Mr. Bell says. “Who is guilty of coercion? I happen to think it’s the left.” Mr. Obama and his supporters are “going to imply that Santorum wants to impose all the tenets of traditional morality on the American population. He doesn’t. He just doesn’t want the opposite imposed on Middle America.”
Read the rest – Social issues and the Santorum surge
Santorum is not obsessed with social values- the media is. Yes, he has is views, which are the same as the Roman Catholic church, and most people know what they are. He needs to find a strategy to move the conversation to other topics, such as Iran, unemployment, or the price of energy. The MSM is pulling out all stops in an effort to portray him as a knuckle-dragging, bible thumper who wishes to impose a theocracy on America. People who pay attention know that this is b.s. but sadly, too many folks are not informed and so this notion is taking hold.
I believe that people crave a leader that, while not intruding on their personal lives, still carry themselves in an uncompromising and resolute fashion.
Do I like Rick Santorum? No.
I’d much rather see Newt Gingrich win the nom, and I don’t even particularly like him.
But in both cases, these men aren’t afraid to speak their mind for better or worse.
Mitt Romney is the antithesis of this, and it’s by design.
If there’s a commonality I’ve heard from the GOP Establishment and Romney supporters, it’s fear. Fear of independents. Fear of offending “groups”. Fear of Democrats. Fear of the media.
We wouldn’t be faced with these horrible choices if we’d done the hard work of forcing the GOP to heed the wishes of it’s base in elections past. But we didn’t. And here we are.
People crave a leader in perilous times, not a manager. There’s a difference.
Rush Limbaugh pointed out on his show yesterday the first two points of Romney’s fifty-something point plan:
If you accept the premise that America is indeed “on the brink,” why would you use such language? It’s not even the thinking behind it, it’s the initiative not taken.
We end up with losers because we run defensive and scared.
This will be amplified if the GOP decides to “insert” someone else, because it will be undeniable proof of the disconnect with their voters.
But we are instructed “Romney is the only one who can win”. If you do not fall in line behind this ‘next RINO in line’ then you are voting for Obama. Meanwhile, 3 of four GOP voters want somebody else for our nominee.
There is something f***ed up about this situation.
Bumr50 wrote:
Exactly so. We did that in 1996 and in 2008. How well did that work out for us? The only way Bush was able to squeak to wins was by talking like he meant to change that, and he did deliver some of that. He cut taxes, and even wetnt so far as to propose allowing people to actually save and invest a small percentage of their Social Security money. That way they’d at least have had that to fall back on once Social Security goes bankrupt. That was too much for a timid Republican majority to stomach. That Republican majority went on to spend like Democrats, which lost them the House and Senate in 2006. This policy of appeasement of the MFM, the Democrats, and Democrat constituencies is working as well as appeasement ever does, which is to say it has repeatedly failed. We will continue to fail until the Republican leadership either gets it or is replaced with leadership that gets it.
Iron Fist wrote:
Romney is simply McCain and Dole on steroids.
They doubled down on electability.
He’s like the “Six Million Dollar Moderate.”
People need to keep in mind that at this point in time, the only contest in national elections is who gets to be the Republican nominee. It might be nice if everybody involved in that fight took the ‘high road’ and campaigned strictly against Obama, but that’s not happening. Once somebody actually captures the nomination, then we shall see what we shall see.
@ Mike C.:
To my eyes, Romney’s whole campaign has been about eliminating his competition in order to maintain an aura of “inevitability.”
Every other candidate, no matter how wacky, has brought a clear message of specific and drastic change in order to avert the Obama-made crisis.
All I hear from Romney are timid generalities against Barack Obama, yet highly specific attacks against his competition during the primary.
I can’t stand the guy, so I guess I’m biased.
@ Bumr50:
They’ve doubled down on stupidity. Electibility may win elections for student council President, but Leadership wins Presidential Elections on the national stage. Reagan beat Carter in a test of leadership skills, more than he did in any list of policy perscriptions. Romney displays few (if any) marks of leadership. Moderates are, almost by definition, not leaders. A leader is not moderate, he is, well, a leader. He makes opinion, not follows it.
Asprin between the knees is 100% effective against pregnancy and STDs.
It is also the lowest cost, easiest protection, in an emergancy, you can even use an imaginary asprin.
If you want to have fun, go ahead and buy your own contraception, STD protection and if it fails, pay for your own treatment, be my guest.
One in four college students has an STD.
Only 54 percent of students regularly use condoms during vaginal intercourse, 29 percent during anal intercourse and only 4 percent during oral sex.
80% of people who have a sexually transmitted disease experience no noticeable symptoms.
Now, go have fun but please pay for it yourself.
Bumr50 wrote:
I feel the same way, I do not want Bohener and Romney in charge because they act like everything is cool.
Everything is not cool.
“He’s dead, Jim.”
Wow, these hit pieces of speranza’s on Santorum really drive the traffic here…
OT- So I see this in the local paper.
So hmmm…
Private financing! Yay, right? Wait…
@ doriangrey:
Santorum is holy and beyond reproach!
I apologize on behalf of Speranza. How dare he express his opinion! I will tell him to only criticize Romney, Newt or Paul. Santorum has been sent to save us from ourselves. He deserves a Juche!
///
Funny Ace of Spades has been trashing Santorum, why no complains about Ace?
Did you see the 2nd article?
@ doriangrey:
Yeah, I’ve been gone for an hour, and I just can’t keep up with all the posts…
Rodan wrote:
I don’t post on Ace.
Good morning all!
O/T, but I thought today’s post by Caroline Glick an interesting read
Harvard, Jew haters, motherhood and Israel
Rodan wrote:
See Iron Fist’s number 16…
Santorum is no fiscal conservative, hes populist compassionate conservatism all the way just like Huckabee or GWB.
I’ll take him over Romney but he’d best get off the social issues Stat and focus like a laser on the economy and energy prices which is the winning solution.
@ Bumr50:
It’s a trap™
I’m starting to think this whole birth control kerfluffle was Obama’s response to the rise of Santorum. He planned to run against Romney -- hence the whole OWS and anti-business movement. Ooops, it may not be Romney after all. And Santorum can’t be challenged using the anti-business strategy. Oh! He’s Catholic? Create Catholic controversy and “crisis” in birth control funding. Now you’ve got a big issue to run with Santorum, because he’ll stick with his Catholic principles and we have great soundbites to use.
@ Carolina Girl:
It’s ALL politics with this entire administration and anyone they’ve appointed to anything.
I’ve learned to take nothing at face value.
Everything is done for the agenda.
doriangrey wrote:
You know what? I cordially invite you never to comment on my threads and to post your own threads. I put both sides up on the thread by the way and I gave my own opinion while you obviously have totalitarian/bullying instincts.
Carolina Girl wrote:
Yes. Alinski’s Rules for Radicals Rule number 13.
Rodan wrote:
I always thought Speranza was a girl . . . really.
Speranza wrote:
Irony seems to be lost on you, you accuse me of totalitarian/bullying instincts in the same breath as telling me to never post on your threads again.
@ Rodan:
They all stink, Santorum stinks less.
Santorum is better than Romney in my mind because he is not the establishment’s choice.
I would be happy with Newt or Perry but looks like Santorum is ahead and motivating people to vote.
Now to stick it to the RINO’s in the primary.
I would be happy to see 100 GOP incumbents primaried even if no Dems loose thier seats in the house, that would be sweet.
father_of_10 wrote:
A lawyer from New York…
Carolina Girl wrote:
WOW
Yeah, watch the Media only cover this, I hope Santos can side step the issue.
He said his piece, now, back to the economic meltdown.
The Republican response fom the beginning should have
been, “I don’t care about anybodies sex life, but I do
care about government intruding in religion. Let’s
move on.”
@ John Difool:
Santorum’s idea for the economy is to give tax cuts for people that have kids and not do anything for others.
@ RIX:
Yup, instead The Holy Saint went charging in like bull and gave the Dems a club.
@ Rodan:
A Papal Bull!!
Romney’s campaign down to $7.7 million cash on hand
Apparently his supporters are a bit tight fisted
Hmmm, the Dow is flirting with 13,000 this morning…
@ John Difool:
@ Rodan:
Actually, the kids thing is really the only problem I have with his economic plan.
Better than Mittens’, IMHO.
@ doriangrey:
The EU kicked the can and bailed out Greece with IOU’s or something.
@ waldensianspirit:
Wow! He’ll have trouble blanketing all the Super Tuesday states with negative ads with that little money. He can apparently only win when he saturates the market. Soemthing to think about. He won’t be able to out-spend Obama…
@ Bumr50:
Santorum should put his name into consideration for Pope next time there’s a papal conclave. He would be an awesome Pope.
@ tunnelrat:
Exactly.
Rodan wrote:
Kids are expensive and the taxpayers of tomorrow.
I don’t know if the economy can be stimulated.
@ Bumr50:
He still is OK with redistribution of wealth and has no plans to reform entitlements. Santorum’s plans are no better than Romney.
Either way, Obama has this election sowed up, so send Santorum as the scarificial duck. It will be the end of Compassionate Conservatism.
waldensianspirit wrote:
Romney to dip into his “Blind Trust’s” in 3…2…1…
Rodan wrote:
???
He said if you think earmarks are the problem you’re way overlooking entitlements
@ Prebanned:
It can’t be by the government spending money. Obama proved that. Whether it can be stimulated by cutting regulations and getting out of the way of business is not a proposition that Obama wishes to persue. Which probably means he thinks it could work. Obama doesn’t want the Economy to grow. That doesn’t foster dependance on the State, and he wants to foster dependance on the State more than anything else.
Santorum said he personally doesn’t think contraceptives are healthy but he voted yes to legislation making them legal and available to those who believe differently than him. To me that’s all that need be ask of him
Rodan wrote:
Knowing how much you hate Compassionate Conservatism one could be forgiven for expecting you to be 100 percent behind Santorum for that reason alone.
Rodan wrote:
He took the bait. Obama set this up as a distraction
from discussing his record.
I heard a woman on the radio this morning shrieking
that 98% of Ctholic Women use birth cotrol.
That tells me that it is available.
Romney has to buy the Presidency just like Obama will be doing.
the good thing about this election is that it spells the end of Rockefeller Republicanism (Romney) and Big Government Compassionate Conservatism (Santorum), since they will either be eliminated either in the primaries or the Obama machine. The bad news is that Obama will win and finish ruining thius country.
I figure our economy and standard of living will approach Europe’s as our regulations and laws grow closer to Europe’s.
That means decline.
The government can’t fix it by enacting more free trade giveaways and more nanny state laws and more green idiocy.
Iron Fist wrote:
The Dems have to crush us to get us to accept communism.
They need to grind us into the dust and make us long for the good old days.
@ Rodan:
Yeah in 2008 we heard that a mccain loss would be the end of RINOs…
…
…
…
*waiting*
Santorum should back away from this.
If was able to prove that Obama is performing
abortions in the basement with a coat hanger and
no anesthetic, the story would be that Santorum
is denying women rights.
@ doriangrey:
I have no dog in this election. On the GOP side its Rockefeller Republicanism (Romney) vs. Nanny State Bush style Compassionate Conservatism (Santorum). Their opponents is a 3rd World Liberation Marxist (Obama).
As a Libertarian leaning Conservatism, this is a Leftist pissing match for me.
@ Rodan:
Which one is the right candidate, then?
@ Rodan:
That “bad news” makes any “good news” irrelevant. But apparently people don’t care and would rather fight each other than Obama.
Bumr50 wrote:
Man, within 6/100th of a point away from 13,000
m wrote:
Those stupid “birth control” questions at the debate by Stephanopolous were doing the administration’s bidding to get the issue out there. No one was talking about this in any form prior to that debate. When Stephy got called on why he even asked the question, he tap danced that it was a bet with Diane Sawyer. But it was really important to get this out there as an issue. In fact, to his credit, Romney basically asked “why the hell are you even asking this stupid question.”
I’ll tell you why Mittens -- because Obama needed the stage set and his sycophants in the media got the email asking them get the issue out there.
@ m:
That’s why there needs to be at least the threat of a mutiny by the base.
Nothing else will change it.
The GOP has successfully set itself up as an opposition party for over a century. It’s going to be difficult to take back.
I’m sick and tired of being counted on to pull a lever every election only to be told to “tone it down,” “be pragmatic,” and “compromise” when my vote isn’t at stake.
@ m:
Most Republicans are OK with Big Government. As long as it does what they want. The GOP is a fraud and not a party for small government/Economic Conservatives types.
Hence the 2008 was the end of RINOs was a delusion.
doriangrey wrote:
I figure all that quantitative easing has to go somewhere.
Rick Santorum Knocks Bush On Bailout, Supports Private-Sector Unions In Detroit Speech
@ m:
This is a Leftist pissing match. The GOP is Leftwing, just not as Leftist as Obama.
What am I supposed to do,m be silent and not speak out against Republican Progressvism, just because of Obama?
Prebanned wrote:
Close, what the Marxist progressive at 1600 need is massive social unrest, rioting and chaos. They can then make the assertion that only strict draconian government intervention can restore order to the nation, and of course that would mean the temporary suspension of the US Constitution.
Santorum: I blame Bush for bailout mentality
Stephanopolous was the foremost hit man during the
Clinton “Bimbo Eruption”
He had no problem destroying women, even if it was
fabricated.
He may come across as Bambi, but he’s a snake.
@ Rodan:
Who is asking you to be silent?
I’m just saying the right can’t be pissed off at losing when they’ve done everything in their power to make it so.
So you’re happier with Obama than Santorum, that’s your opinion. Everyone doesn’t agree.
@ waldensianspirit:
He’s a clone of Bush and was a lackey of his. He’s such a phoney.
Today I get good news that I do not have skin cancer (contrary to previous concerns) and I come here on my own thread and get pissed off over some snarky remark.
@ Speranza:
Let it ride! Great news Speranza!!
m wrote:
It’s not that. Iit’s the lack of presentation and persuasiveness on the part of Romney supporters. They remind me of the Giuliani supporters
@ Speranza:
Dude, that’s AWESOME!!!!!
We’ll have to share a toast later -- my wife is out of town!!
I also commend you for presenting a balanced opinion, despite your personal feelings.
I just think Santorum > Romney. And we’re down to math, unfortunately.
Speranza wrote:
Well congratulations on the skin cancer verdict, that is good news.
@ m:
I’m just saying the right can’t be pissed off at losing when they’ve done everything in their power to make it so.
The real Right doesn’t like being given a choice between Theocratic Populism/Progressivism and 3rd World Liberation Marxism. That’s not a good choice.
I want neither.
If Santoirum is the nominee, expect a Libertarian leaning/Economic Conservative to jump in and give small government types a choice.
@ waldensianspirit:
Ask them to tell you why they’re voting for Mittens without using the words “electable,” “independent,” or “business.”
The man has NO MESSAGE, just a big money stick.
@ Speranza:
Great news. Take a chill pill and don’t let it get to you. You and I are outgunned nowadays. Libertarian-Conservatives are outnumbered by Big Government Nanny state Republicans.
Its something we have to deal with.
where is nevergiveup? He likes Romney if i recall
That would mean the military and anyone else sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and bear true faith and allegiance to the same, would be required to arrest these domestic enemies of the Constitution.
@ Bumr50:
The losses of 2006/2008 are biting us in the ass.
@ Rodan:
And I want Reagan’s Ghost. Neither one is an option.
@ waldensianspirit:
No, he’s a Newt guy.
Rodan wrote:
Harakiri.
Speranza wrote:
Sweet!
National poll: Santorum 36, Romney 26, Gingrich 13, Paul 11
@ Rodan:
Big government nanny state republicans? That’s what anyone who doesn’t agree with you is?
Seriously, Rodan. Fuck you.
@ Rodan:
We need to game better. It’s not going to happen under the current GOP structure. They bring fencing foils to street fights.
@ m:
Hey adding 20 Trillion to the debt is better than adding 23 Trillion if its in the name of family values and morality!
////
m wrote:
@ m:
That’s what Republican voters have been choosing the last 24 years Bush I, Dole, Bush II and McCain.
@ Rodan:
Na, to put it bluntly you’re good at poking Charles Nodickens in the eye. But as far as persuading me that you’ve done careful analysis to come up with your sets of buzz words… ihhh
Rodan wrote:
Small government conservatives will AGAIN be blamed by the GOP if we lose in November, count on it.
Many folks, myself included, thought that the GOP would have learned something from the 2010 election and started to listen to the fledgling movement that just took over the House. Instead, they focused on the disappointments rather than the triumphs and viewed us with contempt.
There was a strong, clear, united message in 2010, and the GOP not only ignored it, they rebuffed it.
That’s why we’re here.
@ doriangrey:
You want to debate the record of the last 2 Republican Presidents and the platforms of the GOP Presidential candidates the last 24 years?
Nope, so you hide with your Alinsky references instead of debating actual facts.
@ Bumr50:
Yet when you point that out, people accuse you of using Alinsky tactics and try to silence you.
It’s really useless even bother debating this anymore.
@ Speranza:
Good news!
Two weeks ago…
h/t Zip
Am I a full Santorum fan? Nope. But over the course of this cycle I defended more candidates than I’ve attacked.
Santorum and Newt are educable. Romney? You’ll never hear from him after he’s got your vote and has his goal.
If you took the time with the clip in @ waldensianspirit:
you’d see Santorum is no islamic republic builder (like Carter, Bush Clinton Bush were) with our resources kind of guy while Romney will be.
Too much politics tends to bring out too much negativity.
On a totally off topic note -- I saw Money Ball on a DVD last night. Not a bad film (generally I am not a fan of baseball movies). Manager Art Howe (who later manged the Mets -- and not very well) played by Philip Seymour Hoffman came across like a real dick in the film.
RIX wrote:
Health is wealth. I was terrified that I had melanoma.
@ Bumr50:
No.
Being willing to settle to get Obama out doesn’t make us big government conservatives. It’s just willing to settle to get Obama out.
@ Rodan:
I put up two columns -- one criticizing and the other defending so both points of view were represented. As you know I am an economic conservative, national defense hawk and a social libertarian.
m wrote:
I would do anything and vote for anyone (except for Luap Nor) to get rid of the plague that has been upon us since January 2009.
Poll: By 2-1 Margin Americans Oppose Obama’s $10K Subsidy For Volt Buyers…
@ Speranza:
I saw a low-budget horror flick called Absentia.
It was good.
Low on overproduced gore, high on thrill and suspense.
Rodan wrote:
The Alinski reference is a FACT. You use Alinski tactics on everyone who even remotely disagrees with you. Republicans haven’t been “Choosing” Big government nanny state republicans for the last 24 years, they have been forced to accept the lessor of two evils for the last 24 years.
Don’t get it fucked up, I’ve been against the GOP Elite far longer than you have. What I am not against is the average rank and file Republican/Conservative who is forced to make pragmatic decisions by a corrupt elitist leadership and tries to make the best of a bad situation.
@ m:
You disagree with that premise?
Not fighting, just a bit confused…
@ Speranza:
Apparently you’re now BIG GOVERMENT! BIG GOVERNMENT!
/
(so glad to hear your good news!! I didn’t even know there was a possibility of the bad news!)
@ Speranza:
We are outnumbered nowadays.
@ Bumr50:
I disagree with the premise that willing to settle for someone besides the one I really want -- TO GET OBAMA OUT -- makes one a Big Government Conservative.
@ doriangrey:
So you concede my point that the GOP is not the Party of small government and economic freedom. Its the Party of the Nanny state, just disagree with the Democrats as the nanny state.
Fact is when given a choice, Republican voters choose a Big Government Nanny state candidate over a small Government Conservative.
Papa Bush, Dole, Baby Bush, McCain and soon (Romney or Santorum). Actions speak louder than words.
m wrote:
I was living in dread for two weeks.
Speranza wrote:
I don’t blame you, it is very common in my family.But you got great news!
The liberal Democratic politician and the conservative Republican politician will always have far more in common with each other then with the voters who sent them to Washington D.C.
@ m:
I didn’t say that, did I?
I just said that if the GOP loses, they will blame us rather than looking at themselves.
RIX wrote:
As you get older, you are always having to put down mutinies by your various body parts.
@ Speranza:
Aint that the truth!
New thread.
@ Bumr50:
The whole “us” as in small government vs people that vote for Romney/Santorum/WHOEVER -- they aren’t necessarily BIG GOVERNMENT. Some small government fans will hold their noses and vote against Obama.
I’ll vote for a chicken over Obama but that doesn’t make me colonel sanders.
If you guys want to claim anyone that doesn’t vote for Reagan (who isn’t running) is a Big Government Stooge then by all means… have at it.
But don’t be surprised that it irks people.
Rodan wrote:
No, I don’t agree with you. The GOP leadership are not the Party of small government and economic freedom, but you keep painting the entire Republican Party with that very broad brush of yours.
I live in California, remember? The most populous and most financially prosperous state in the entire Union, yet by the time California has it’s primaries the Republican Nominee will already have been chosen. I have been voting since 1979 and not once in that time has California ever had a say in who the nominee was.
I have had a serious hate on for the GOP Leadership every since Reagan finished is second term. I tried running for office here in California twice and couldn’t even raise enough money or vote’s to get on the ballet.
But like I said, I don’t hate the Republican base and I don’t insult them or ridicule them because I don’t get my way.
Speranza wrote:
Congratulations on your health news. Aggravation is better than skin cancer (depending on the kind of skin cancer).
Speranza wrote:
Wow, sorry you had to go through that. That really sucks.
I see Drudge is up to his Florida tricks, taking a years old Santorum vid and splashing it all over as the BIGGEST NEWS OF THE DAY!!!
I said it when he did it to Newt and now I’m saying it because he’s doing it to Rick:
“SELLOUT!!!!”
I’m surprised it’s not red….
@ doriangrey:
The Republican base keeps electing Big Governmnet types. Actions speak louder than words. I don’t want to hear the GOP is the party of small government and economic freedom. It’s not.
Speranza wrote:
“I ache in the places where I used to play.” -- Leonard Cohen
Rodan wrote:
The Republican base keep choosing the lessor of two evils, that my friend is called pragmatism. Someone claiming to be a fiscal conservative should understand that.
@ m:
Ack!
I never said that!
tunnelrat wrote:
And a few others I know…
@ doriangrey:
Time and time again, the base chooses Big Governmnet types over Small Government types. That’s not pragmatic. Its called most Republican voters don’t really want small government.
Actions are louder than words.
@ Speranza:
Congrats on your good news, by the way. Waiting on the answer from a biopsy is one of the worst things in life. Thank God the answer was “negative”.
Iron Fist wrote:
Dude the terror is palpable. Thanks.
The leftist press -- Financial Times, e.g. -- has been full of “capitalism in crisis”. Actually, as this page of comments shows, what is happening in the Western world is a crisis of democracy.
Despite the valiant attempt by the Constitution to check, balance and limit power, our democracy will destroy the Republic. Same in Europe. “Democracy” is now legitimizing the most retrograde, cruel regimes in the Middle East. From the feds down to the the local council, we are voting for our own enslavement.
Moe Katz wrote:
One of the great musical artists.
@ doriangrey:
Thank God it ended on a good note.
Moe Katz wrote:
I long to see cancer obsolete.
@ Bumr50:
Sorry, your 93 had me lumping you in with Rodan. I apologize.
@ m:
It’s ok!