Santorum wins in Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri

timesnap

Denerick wrote: »

Thats just mindless rhetoric. 'Did Obama listen to the American people when he did X, when he did Y?' He is deliberately exploiting the innate stupidity of the electorate in order to achieve political gain (Which is what all politicians inevitably do, those few politicians who refuse to appeal to prejudice or idiocy usually end up working for think tanks or as academics) Obama was elected on a mandate of broad scale change. For the first two years of his term he tried to reform the inhumane and exploitative healthcare system. The Republicans won a landslide in the midterms. THus the Obama agenda was rejected. This is democracy in a modern Republic. Don't take Santorum's rhetoric as gospel.

Hi Denerick,you have reproduced only the video from my post,none of the text which makes it appear that i do not see through rhetoric.
i don't agree that the electorate are innately stupid ,but they would have to dedicate their lives to seeing through the agenda ridden media to get even a semblance of the truth,most people cannot spare that amount of time.

Obama is living proof that rhetoric goes a long way,behind his rhetoric i agree is a fine intellect,all the more reason i was annoyed at his aloofness in not trying harder to sell his ideas to the people which cost him control of the house in the mid-terms.
on other threads i have said that from day one congress has seemed more concerned with obstruction and destruction of Obama and all he stands for than looking out for America.

to put the video in context i intended it for,i said that i could understand who might find, Romney,Gingrich and Paul's message attractive, but never Santorum until that clip.
His attack on Obama and Romney was a fine and effective piece of rhetoric.
anybody who has not listened to it the section of the speech i am referring to starts from about 2mins 30 secs and runs to just after the eight minute mark.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

irishh_bob

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

im of the opinion that libertarians should have no truck with either of the main parties but your posts seemed pretty adament that libertarians had more in common with republicans and that they usually throw thier lot in with them due to great compatibility with libertarian ideals

Denerick

irishh_bob wrote: »

im of the opinion that libertarians should have no truck with either of the main parties but your posts seemed pretty adament that libertarians had more in common with republicans and that they usually throw thier lot in with them due to great compatibility with libertarian ideals

The Republicans have an active libertarian wing with a rich tradition (Goldwater was the Republican candidate in 1964) Libertarians need to go somewhere, and they've traditionally been more welcome in the Republican party. Besides, even the social conservative nominally believe in a smaller state, less welfare etc. (Even though social conservatives are essentially hypocritical and hyperventilate if the government threaten social security or medicare)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

irishh_bob

Denerick wrote: »

The Republicans have an active libertarian wing with a rich tradition (Goldwater was the Republican candidate in 1964) Libertarians need to go somewhere, and they've traditionally been more welcome in the Republican party. Besides, even the social conservative nominally believe in a smaller state, less welfare etc. (Even though social conservatives are essentially hypocritical and hyperventilate if the government threaten social security or medicare)

all that is true if your the kind of libertarian who places economic freedom way above social and moral freedom , not to mention pacifism , as i said earlier , libertarians might be blood brothers with republicans when it comes to the right to become a billionaire but on almost every other score , they are chalk and cheese

heard a libertarian in one of those fox news audience debates last week say she wanted democrats out of her wallett and republicans out of her bedroom , she was a ron paul supporter

irishh_bob

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

i agree with your descision not to vote for either party but ive also looked back over your earlier posts , its pretty clear that you believe libertarians ( in general ) natural home ( if thier is one ) is with the GOP rather than the democrats

Valmont

irishh_bob wrote: »

i agree with your descision not to vote for either party but ive also looked back over your earlier posts , its pretty clear that you believe libertarians ( in general ) natural home ( if thier is one ) is with the GOP rather than the democrats

It's been the case in the past* that libertarians would vote Republican if only to stop a division of the non-democrat voting block; call it damage control, if you will.

Why would you call the GOP the 'natural home' of libertarians?

*edit: past being the operative word with the now limited choice of the Republicrats or the Republicrats.

irishh_bob

Valmont wrote: »

It's been the case in the past* that libertarians would vote Republican if only to stop a division of the non-democrat voting block; call it damage control, if you will.

Why would you call the GOP the 'natural home' of libertarians?

*edit: past being the operative word with the now limited choice of the Republicrats or the Republicrats.

i dont think libertarians natural home is in the GOP , permabear earlier pointed to a great similarity between libertarians and republicans than between libertarians and democrats , i made the point that on two out of three core issues , libertarians had absolutley nothing in common with republicans and that on balance , they had more in common with democrats although truth be told , thier a very different beast than either

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Too much libertarianism.

Not enough Mittens.

Let's get back on topic, please.

SSR

amacachi

Denerick wrote: »

He is deliberately exploiting the innate stupidity of the electorate in order to achieve political gain

Change!

:pac:

Romney wins again in Maine, plenty of press will confirm him as the Republican nominee.

southsiderosie

amacachi wrote: »

Change!

:pac:

Romney wins again in Maine, plenty of press will confirm him as the Republican nominee.

Maine held a non-binding straw poll that less than 2% of voters took part in. I don't think any of this matters until Super Tuesday - that will separate the wheat from the chaff.

I did think this was interesting though (from the above article):

As it was, Mr. Romney also won the annual straw poll of activists at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday. He took 38 percent of the 3,408 votes cast, compared with 31 percent for Mr. Santorum, 15 percent for Mr. Gingrich and 12 percent for Mr. Paul of Texas, who won the last two years but did not attend this time.

I think the results are kind of indicative of the position of the base right now: Romney has the best chance of beating Obama, but Santorum is by far the truest social conservative (note - NOT small government conservative). Gingrich had his chance and blew it when he was Speaker of the House, and Paul is too socially liberal and doveish on foreign policy.

amacachi

southsiderosie wrote: »

Maine held a non-binding straw poll that less than 2% of voters took part in. I don't think any of this matters until Super Tuesday - that will separate the wheat from the chaff.

I did think this was interesting though (from the above article):



I think the results are kind of indicative of the position of the base right now: Romney has the best chance of beating Obama, but Santorum is by far the truest social conservative (note - NOT small government conservative). Gingrich had his chance and blew it when he was Speaker of the House, and Paul is too socially liberal and doveish on foreign policy.

It is, as people pointed out many months ago, a case of just having to pinch one's nose when voting. Barring a massive trolling effort Romney will win most states and a higher proportion of delegates than states.

It's not just the different ideological factions screwing the GOP, it's the local parties, whatever they're called. Obama was well and truly on the ropes last year, a short, quick primary season with a clear frontrunner was the way to go. Instead they couldn't pick one out of 3 and the primaries are ridiculously spread out giving even more chance for people to realise just how few people actually want Romney running 4 prez.

jackiebaron

Jonny7 wrote: »

Oh sweet jesus I thought this guy was out of the race.

Well, at least its getting very interesting now. Obama must be loving this.

We agree on one thing J7.

Isn't this clown going to make it illegal to shag your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend in the ass even if she/he begs for it?

Biblical law and all that crap. Yet one of God's top 10 no-no's, adultery, will still be A-O-K.

southsiderosie

From the NY Times:

A New York Times/CBS News poll released Tuesday morning showed Mr. Santorum surging among Republican primary voters nationwide, lifted by support among conservatives, evangelical Christians and Tea Party supporters.

In the new poll, 30 percent of Republican primary voters say they support Mr. Santorum, compared with 27 percent for Mr. Romney. While Mr. Santorum’s lead is essentially a tie with Mr. Romney because it is within the margin of sampling error, it reflects a significant jump for him from earlier polls.

The two other major candidates are further behind, at 12 percent for Ron Paul and 10 percent for Newt Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich’s numbers have fallen sharply since his win in South Carolina on Jan. 21.

Given that pretty much every candidate in this race (barring Paul, I think) has had their moment in the sun as a front-runner, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this, but the fact that someone as far to the right as Santorum continues to do so well is a bit frightening. That said, I don't think he can win a national election, so I would be delighted if he got the GOP nod.

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

but the fact that someone as far to the right as Santorum continues to do so well is a bit frightening. That said, I don't think he can win a national election, so I would be delighted if he got the GOP nod.

Rick opposed the auto bailout, the Freddie and Fannie bailout, and Obama’s crony capitalism bills. He opposed individual health care mandates, opposed cap and trade, and was in favor of drilling in ANWR. He is a strong advocate on border security, national security, and defense. He not only touts traditional family values… he lives them. I think more and more Americans wish we would have followed him on these.

Now he has had his problems. He was a big government republican under Bush, supported the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks. And there was the Terri Shiavo thing.

But overall he seems to be the kind of leader we need right now. Except he might not appeal to independents at the moment, but that could change. So what is so wrong with him? If it has to do with social leanings, please elaborate, as I think much of what he favors... Obama does also.

I’ve been approached to work on his campaign in my state (which is also Rick’s home state). I’m a Romney guy right now, but Santorum does have appeal to me. I might consider it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dr Galen

I've moved some posts dealing with the recent contraception and religious organisations/workplaces into their own thread

Cheers

DrG

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

Rick opposed the auto bailout, the Freddie and Fannie bailout, and Obama’s crony capitalism bills. He opposed individual health care mandates, opposed cap and trade, and was in favor of drilling in ANWR. He is a strong advocate on border security, national security, and defense. He not only touts traditional family values… he lives them. I think more and more Americans wish we would have followed him on these.

Now he has had his problems. He was a big government republican under Bush, supported the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks. And there was the Terri Shiavo thing.

But overall he seems to be the kind of leader we need right now. Except he might not appeal to independents at the moment, but that could change. So what is so wrong with him? If it has to do with social leanings, please elaborate, as I think much of what he favors... Obama does also.

I’ve been approached to work on his campaign in my state (which is also Rick’s home state). I’m a Romney guy right now, but Santorum does have appeal to me. I might consider it.

Based on his comments, the proposed level of government interference into what I would consider private bedroom matters would be completely unacceptable. I frankly don't agree with Obama on a lot of social issues (most notably gay marriage), but Santorum is 100 times worse. And I cannot even begin to imagine the kinds of political appointments that would be made under his watch - that is even scarier than the idea of him as President. NO THANKS.