[whoDean]

Tomasky is discounting the one thing GOP voters will coalesce around (each with their own reason)...the hated of Obama. Once there is only one "not Obama" choice watch what happens.

I don't know if Obama will be re-elected or not but this is way too early to discount the GOP chances.

[Medz]

It doesn't matter who the GOP coalesces around. To gain the GOP nomination, that person will have to have gone so far to the right that he makes himself unelectable to the rest of the country. If Romney is the nominee, the minute he shows any signs of moderation or compromise on a single issue, the right will pounce all over him.

When the candidates were asked if they would accept a small tax hike in exchange for 90% spending cuts and they all said no, that was the sign that the base will accept nothing less than absolute ideological purity.

[whoDean]

So quickly we forget how Independents voted in 2010

Sure, the Republican race looks muddy now...it's February.

[Stefan S]

Originally Posted by whoDean

So quickly we forget how Independents voted in 2010

It was a very different situation, though.

The economy was in shambles.

Obama lost the propaganda battle about the affordable care.

It was the beginning of the TEA Party movement and many people thought the right wing is really about balancing a budget (rather than controlling women's bodies).

Osama and Gadhaffiwere were still around us and well.

Mitt, Gingrich, and Santorum did not yet savage each other with their perpetual negative adds (well, Santorum stayed mostly out of it, to his credit).

Most people had no clue about Santorum's stand about women, contraceptives, gays, and other cultural issue.

And Obama was a Muslim and not even an American citizen.

The time are much different now.

[DYNOMITE]

Originally Posted by Medz

It doesn't matter who the GOP coalesces around. To gain the GOP nomination, that person will have to have gone so far to the right that he makes himself unelectable to the rest of the country. If Romney is the nominee, the minute he shows any signs of moderation or compromise on a single issue, the right will pounce all over him.

When the candidates were asked if they would accept a small tax hike in exchange for 90% spending cuts and they all said no, that was the sign that the base will accept nothing less than absolute ideological purity.

Again, define base. Most of my family are Republicans, all of us thought that was ridiculous. Did you ever think Santourum's rise has nothing to do with his far right leaning social positions and everything to do with Romney's social elite stink. Contrary to what you want to believe about Republicans, we don't fall for all the bullshit. Whoever ends up with the nomination is not going to win. It will be because enough of the base doesn't believe the Republican solutions to the nation's problems will work. I don't think Obama has a clue about what to do about the economy. But it is more insulting to here the Republicans tout more tax cuts for the rich as the solution. I will be sitting this one out.

[hack]

You don't fall for all the bullshit but don't go giving the rest of GOP voters that same credit.

[DYNOMITE]

Originally Posted by Stefan S

It was a very different situation, though.

The economy was in shambles.

Obama lost the propaganda battle about the affordable care.

It was the beginning of the TEA Party movement and many people thought the right wing is really about balancing a budget (rather than controlling women's bodies).

Osama and Gadhaffiwere were still around us and well.

Mitt, Gingrich, and Santorum did not yet savage each other with their perpetual negative adds (well, Santorum stayed mostly out of it, to his credit).

Most people had no clue about Santorum's stand about women, contraceptives, gays, and other cultural issue.

And Obama was a Muslim and not even an American citizen.

The time are much different now.

Will you stop the bullshit about controlling women's bodies. Not providing free contraceptives and controlling women's bodies are far from the same thing. You are dishonest in this just as you were when you gave tallies of how many people in the US die from not having health insurance, then stopped being concerned once Obamacare was passed, even though everyone wouldn't be covered for years. Maybe I am wrong here, has Santorum actually suggested a federal law banning contraceptives? Do you honestly think that would pass? Fucking ridiculous.

[DYNOMITE]

Originally Posted by hack

You don't fall for all the bullshit but don't go giving the rest of GOP voters that same credit.

Please. You people act like there are perfect candidates, every election. You are the ones buying the spin. Who ends up on the ballot is not in my control.

[hack]

Well lol @ ``you people'', but I don't get the objection to my point.

[DYNOMITE]

Originally Posted by hack

Well lol @ ``you people'', but I don't get the objection to my point.

I must have missed your point.

[Lou Stefanic]

Obama lost 21 states in the 2008 primaries. At this point in that campaign, the left was fighting over whether illegals should have driver's licenses and who would be quickest to negotiate with Chavez and the Mullahs. The Obama campaign was going around insinuating that their party's most recent president was a racist. Hillary was warning us how Obama would dither when a phone call came in at 3 a.m. In other words, it's early.

I still think Obama is most likely to win, but his extraordinary failures over the past couple of years is going to keep the eventual GOP candidate close. In 2008, it looked like the bottom was going to fall out from the economy and Obama only got 52% of the vote.

[hack]

I was trying to make the point that you should not assume everyone else has the ability to cut through BS that you do.

[Lou Stefanic]

I kind of thought the eventual Obamacare decision was going to be the biggest story out of the Court this year. At the very least, it has some competition in that regard now:

Supreme Court takes up affirmative action case | Inside Higher Ed

I think there's a real chance that the Court could finally reject the use of race as a factor in college admissions. Alito replacing O'Connor (who was the fifth vote with the four other progressive justices last time) is a big, big change.

[Stefan S]

Originally Posted by DYNOMITE

Will you stop the bullshit about controlling women's bodies. Not providing free contraceptives and controlling women's bodies are far from the same thing. You are dishonest in this just as you were when you gave tallies of how many people in the US die from not having health insurance, then stopped being concerned once Obamacare was passed, even though everyone wouldn't be covered for years. Maybe I am wrong here, has Santorum actually suggested a federal law banning contraceptives? Do you honestly think that would pass? Fucking ridiculous.

I will repeat, according to non-partisan Harvard study published in a refereed journal, some 44.000 American die every year prematurely, because they did not have sufficient access to a med care. yes, some of these people are still uninsured. I am sorry about it. It is a shame. I was always a defender of the single pay payer, or at least a national co-op. But, for political reasons, it went only so far. It is still lots of progress. For some reason you blame me for I have no idea what. Did I change my position? Am I not radical enough? A compromise is always a bad thing?

"Maybe I am wrong here, has Santorum actually suggested a federal law banning contraceptives? Do you honestly think that would pass?"

I do not know it would pass, it might. Do you think we would have invaded a totally surrounded country under control on a unverified caim they have nukes, and so on and so forth.

At the state level it is already happening even now. I will look for a clip or two. Presidentes have ways to seed up or slow down this sor of processes as proven during civil right movement.

PS.

"You are dishonest in this just as you were when you gave tallies of how many people in the US die from not having health insurance, then stopped being concerned once Obamacare was passed, even though everyone wouldn't be covered for years."

My first reaction to that was to say "fuck you!" but now I will only say fuck off! But, yeah, you succeeded in making me rather angry for a moment.

[DYNOMITE]

Originally Posted by Stefan S

I will repeat, according to non-partisan Harvard study published in a refereed journal, some 44.000 American die every year prematurely, because they did not have sufficient access to a med care. yes, some of these people are still uninsured. I am sorry about it. It is a shame. I was always a defender of the single pay payer, or at least a national co-op. But, for political reasons, it went only so far. It is still lots of progress. For some reason you blame me for I have no idea what. Did I change my position? Am I not radical enough? A compromise is always a bad thing?

"Maybe I am wrong here, has Santorum actually suggested a federal law banning contraceptives? Do you honestly think that would pass?"

I do not know it would pass, it might. Do you think we would have a totally surrounded country not under a pretense of her getting nukes? Well, that's what happened in Iraq. At the state level it is happening even now. I will look for a clip.


PS.

"You are dishonest in this just as you were when you gave tallies of how many people in the US die from not having health insurance, then stopped being concerned once Obamacare was passed, even though everyone wouldn't be covered for years."

My first reaction to that was to say "fuck you!" fut now I will only say fuck off! But, yeas, you succeeded in making me rather angry.

Well answer the question, Has Santorum suggested a law banning contraceptives?


Your dishonesty was in your anger, or more specifically, the subject of your anger, the GOP. Forget the fact that you liked to blur the line when it came to access to health care and access to health insurance. But when Obamacare finally passed, with Democratic control of House and Senate, you rejoiced. You didn't go on a rant about how many more would die between the passing of the bill and the actual implementation of it. You didn't criticize it for the 10's of thousands that would still surely die because of it's inadequacies. If you did, maybe I missed it, and I apologize. But sounds bites are not facts. Santorums personal religious beliefs and sound bites while pandering to a like-minded crowd does not equal wanting to control women's bodies. Nor does the Catholic Churches stand on employer provided contraceptives. You know better.

[Stefan S]

"Democratic control of House and Senate, you rejoiced."

Again, there is no point in further criticizing this bill for any other than philosophical reason and I already conceded, for the 10th time, the bill is imperfect. However, at this moment, there is no political way to improve the bill. This is why I shut up on this issue.

Like I said, I will look for clips. Re Santorum, he surely said that the states would have a right to outlaw contraceptives. I m sure, he would welcome a law like a current Virginia initiative. I am sure he would try to establish at the federal level that human life begins at conception. Electing him would surely shift the Supreme court even further to right. Maybe the law like Roe vs. Wade would be overruled. He probably give lots of poor to corporations and rich, because that's how GOP generally steers these days. It would be a new era of culture wars ran by a bigot who has a history of attack on gays and who is also a religious zealot.

Also, what dishonesty (in my anger).
Can someone explain to me what the fuck Dyno has in mind?
Or is he just straight up insulting me again for the heck of it?

[Billl]

"Well answer the question, Has Santorum suggested a law banning contraceptives?"

Not exactly. He just said we should ignore the supreme court rulings and that states should be allowed to ban contraceptives, sodomy, and anything else they don't care for. Whether he could get legislation passed along those lines is really beside the point since that would be a clear violation of the constitution. These laws have all been on the books before and have been struck down by the supreme court already. The larger point is that Santorum thinks that banning birth control is a proper role of government and sees no problem with the government regulating sex between consenting adults.


Rick Santorum: States Should Have Power To Ban Birth Control, Sodomy



"Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, whose strong base of evangelical Christian supporters has thrust him into contention in Iowa, said on Monday that he believes states should have the right to outlaw birth control and sodomy without the interference of the Supreme Court. In an interview with Jake Tapper on ABC News, Santorum reiterated his opposition to the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling that prevented Connecticut from banning contraception.
“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that," he said. "It is not a constitutional right. The state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have. That's the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court--they are creating rights, and it should be left up to the people to decide."
Santorum said he also opposes the Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision striking down a ban on sodomy in Texas and 13 other states. Even though he would not personally vote for a ban on sodomy, he said, he thinks states should legally be able to pass them, because sodomy is not a constitutionally protected right."

[whoDean]

You seem like a partisan cheerleader, I think is the gist of it, Stefan, like Newman more concerned with party affiliation than actual policy.

[hack]

whoDean hardly posts anymore in this thread save to project his own politics-as-sport approach on to others.

[Billl]

"I think there's a real chance that the Court could finally reject the use of race as a factor in college admissions. Alito replacing O'Connor (who was the fifth vote with the four other progressive justices last time) is a big, big change."

I think it is possible, but we'll see. Texas is already using "Top 10% of your class" as a proxy for race and nobody is challenging that portion of the law. The only thing being challenged is the use of race as a factor in filling seats beyond the top 10%.

Of course, the underlying fact is that "Top 10% of your class" only serves as a proxy for race because Texas public high schools are essentially segregated. Setting aside seats for the top 10% of a black school has the same effect as setting aside seats for individual black students without the appearance of any individual discrimination. The admission process still isn't a merit based system.

[whoDean]

Originally Posted by DYNOMITE

I don't think Obama has a clue about what to do about the economy. But it is more insulting to here the Republicans tout more tax cuts for the rich as the solution.

Here is their problem, the GOP needs to accept some sort of a tax increase on the $1mil+ crowd, polls show even those who identify themselves as Republicans favor this by 60%+.

It should be married to a healthy spending cut.

[mn3]

Originally Posted by whoDean

You seem like a partisan cheerleader, I think is the gist of it, Stefan, like Newman more concerned with party affiliation than actual policy.

Pot calling kettle, "You're black."

Does it make you feel better to believe progressives don't believe in the policies they say they support, and their motivation for saying what they say is solely to win elections and gain power?

Thank goodness people on your side of the isle are policy-pure and eschew party politics. You're like role models for the rest of us schlumps.

[RugbyPike#11]

A Brooklyn house trashed by Occupy Wall Street is a symbol of a movement that failed to capitalize on public anger - NYPOST.com

On Dec. 6, nearly 300 members of the Occupy Wall Street movement flooded into East New York to begin what they considered phase two of their efforts. A few weeks earlier, they had been rousted from Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park, where they had camped for three months — attracting worldwide attention and forcing politicians to take notice.
But for all the hype, Occupy was being criticized — even from the left — for being vague in its goals. The signs railed against bailouts and the greed of the 1%, but protesters coalesced around no legislation, no candidate, no reforms. Everyone agreed that inequality is bad, but what to do about it?

“Occupy Our Homes” was that idea. The group would take over an empty house, foreclosed on by a bank, fix it up and provide shelter to a homeless family

[hack]

OWS certainly looks like it's done. Even the two tents of Occupy Ann Arbor in that little parkette downtown are gone!

Seriously though, you need only look three posts up to see that they did change the story. The torch has been passed to some billionaires like Buffett and Gates, and others will take it from them at some point.

[mn3]

The Occupy Movement was a prime reason why the public conversation in this country shifted to fairness from where it had been: austerity. The 1% vs 99% is the absolute key contextual conversation going into the 2012 election. Solving our country's problems is now about what's fair, vs. what's best for the rich that might somehow, someday, trickle down. The deficit's solution is now all about fairness - tax the rich (which even 50% or Republicans favor).

[Billl]

What most democrats don't want to admit is that while the conversation now includes the word "fairness", the policy implications are NOT what they wanted. Sure, you hear lots of people talking about fairness, but about half of them think that "everyone should pay some income tax" ie we should increase taxes on the poor and middle class. A lot of them also mean "it's not fair to tax me to pay for these broken benefit programs." We might see some small, token tax increase for millionaires, but the rest of the debate seems to be heading towards flattening the tax scale and scaling back social programs.

[hack]

I agree with you that solutions in the near future are unlikely to look anything like what the OWS crowd would want. I think it's progress though. Awareness is the first step.

[DYNOMITE]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Outspoken New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie had some rather harsh words for billionaire investor Warren Buffett on Tuesday.
During a discussion with CNN's Piers Morgan about tax rates, Christie made it known that he's just about had it with Buffett, the world-famous investor who lent his name to a proposed tax hike on the rich.

• Print
• Comment

"He should just write a check and shut up," Christie said. "I'm tired of hearing about it. If he wants to give the government more money, he's got the ability to write a check -- go ahead and write it."
Earlier in the interview, responding to a question on class warfare in the political system, Christie, who has developed a reputation for not mincing words, said he didn't want to discuss Buffett.
"I'm so tired of talking about Warren Buffett," Christie said. "What are you going to bring up next, his secretary?"
First proposed by President Obama last year, the so-called "Buffett Rule" is intended to ensure that people making more than $1 million a year pay a higher share of their income in taxes than middle-class households.
To drive home the point, Buffett's secretary attended the State of the Union address in January. She pays a higher effective tax rate than her billionaire boss.
"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. That's pretty straightforward," Obama said in September.
But the administration, in putting forth Obama's budget last week, made clear that they are not pushing to implement the Buffett Rule now. Rather, it's a guiding principle for when -- if -- Congress takes up tax reform.
Christie isn't the first Republican to criticize Buffett -- who has responded with a standing offer to match any donations to the Treasury from congressional Republicans.
If that Republican happens to be Sen. Mitch McConnell, a frequent critic of higher taxes on the rich, Buffett will triple the match.
So far, only one Republican has taken Buffett up on his offer: Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia, who gave 15% of his salary to the Treasury in 2011, and plans to do so again in 2012.
In a letter to Rigell, Buffett said he would be happy to match both donations.
Christie, one of Mitt Romney's most popular and visible surrogates, is frequently mentioned as a possible 2012 running mate for the Republican party's eventual nominee.

First Published: February 21, 2012: 7:24 PM ET

[hack]

Not surprised he's tired of hearing about it, but nothing in there is an actual rebuttal of the point Buffett is making. No way I'm going to suffer a minute of Piers Morgan though, to confirm the suspicion that one wasn't asked for.

[DYNOMITE]

Originally Posted by Stefan S

"Democratic control of House and Senate, you rejoiced."

Again, there is no point in further criticizing this bill for any other than philosophical reason and I already conceded, for the 10th time, the bill is imperfect. However, at this moment, there is no political way to improve the bill. This is why I shut up on this issue.

Like I said, I will look for clips. Re Santorum, he surely said that the states would have a right to outlaw contraceptives. I m sure, he would welcome a law like a current Virginia initiative. I am sure he would try to establish at the federal level that human life begins at conception. Electing him would surely shift the Supreme court even further to right. Maybe the law like Roe vs. Wade would be overruled. He probably give lots of poor to corporations and rich, because that's how GOP generally steers these days. It would be a new era of culture wars ran by a bigot who has a history of attack on gays and who is also a religious zealot.

Also, what dishonesty (in my anger).
Can someone explain to me what the fuck Dyno has in mind?
Or is he just straight up insulting me again for the heck of it?

Again you (almost daily) blamed the GOP for 40,000+ deaths a year. When Obamacare passed, you no longer mentioned the 40,000+/year that would still surly die because of the imperfect bill, Democrats. More politics over policy.

Medz used to be the biggest cheerleader for the Dems. He has not been happy with Obama and has no problem explaining why. Now election season is upon us and we are back to posting nonsense articles about people none of us here are openly supporting. Why not tell the crowd what the President is going to do to fix what is broke? I just posted an article that says he isn't planning on doing much to balance the tax issue. So it really doesn't matter if Romney pays little to no tax if the sitting President doesn't think the discrepancy is important enough to actual act on. Better to just parade Warren Buffet's secretary out for the State of the Union for the press op than to actually push legislation.

[DYNOMITE]

Originally Posted by hack

Not surprised he's tired of hearing about it, but nothing in there is an actual rebuttal of the point Buffett is making. No way I'm going to suffer a minute of Piers Morgan though, to confirm the suspicion that one wasn't asked for.

I didn't post that to cheer lead for Christie, I posted it to show both sides are bought and paid for.

[hack]

Understood. I just found it notable that ``tired of it'' is news and there isn't anything about what Christie advocates in the story.

[mn3]

Christie is really good at channeling the anger that's in favor with and is reflective of the Right portion of the base - which is where the energy in the Republican Party is at this moment in history. He does that while retaining his credibility as a leader. IMO - he's the only one in the country able to do that. Santorum tried, but he's shown himself to be unelectable with his extreme views. Gingrich is too damn angry. Romney is twisting himself into an inauthentic pretzel as he tries to appease that power base - and in the process has turned himself into a joke of a candidate. Bachmann, Cain, Trump, Palin, Perry - all attempted to be the standbearer of the extremists, and all of them where thrown off the train as unelectable shrill wannabees.

Christie is a massive jerk, IMO. But he's not been thrown off the train. Will he remain an electable favorite once he officially runs? I don't know.

[DYNOMITE]

To quote me....



" I just posted an article that says he isn't planning on doing much to balance the tax issue. So it really doesn't matter if Romney pays little to no tax if the sitting President doesn't think the discrepancy is important enough to actual act on. Better to just parade Warren Buffet's secretary out for the State of the Union for the press op than to actually push legislation."


I actually agree with Newman about the 99 vs 1%. So I find it troubling that President Obama really has no plans to fix it now. Why wait? Tackle it now instead of using it as a campaign issue. It plays the same come November, win or lose, if he is on the right side of it. Policy over politics is what we should all be in favor of.

[DYNOMITE]

As to Christie....I think too much is made of these people and their opinions. One day they are your average politician and the next the Press leads them to believe that people actually want to hear what they have to say. Most, IMHO, aren't ready for the fame and handle it poorly. Christie is nothing more than the governor of NJ. What he has to say has no effect on me or anyone here.(unless maybe you live in NJ)

[hack]

I actually agree with Newman about the 99 vs 1%. So I find it troubling that President Obama really has no plans to fix it now. Why wait? Tackle it now instead of using it as a campaign issue. It plays the same come November, win or lose, if he is on the right side of it. Policy over politics is what we should all be in favor of.


It doesn't work that way though. Never does. That's how it is with democracies.

[Stefan S]

Originally Posted by DYNOMITE

Again you (almost daily) blamed the GOP for 40,000+ deaths a year. When Obamacare passed, you no longer mentioned the 40,000+/year that would still surly die because of the imperfect bill, Democrats. More politics over policy.

Medz used to be the biggest cheerleader for the Dems. He has not been happy with Obama and has no problem explaining why. Now election season is upon us and we are back to posting nonsense articles about people none of us here are openly supporting. Why not tell the crowd what the President is going to do to fix what is broke? I just posted an article that says he isn't planning on doing much to balance the tax issue. So it really doesn't matter if Romney pays little to no tax if the sitting President doesn't think the discrepancy is important enough to actual act on. Better to just parade Warren Buffet's secretary out for the State of the Union for the press op than to actually push legislation.

Yeah, (almost daily) I was quoting the Harvard study, because (almost daily) we heard (from the right wing ideologues) nonsense about how terrible it would be to adopt esentially Dole/Mitt blueprint for creating national health care.

I will repeat again, I think compromising in political arena is a virtue. Compromises frequently indicate progress. I understand you cannot always get what you want but I root for progress for it gets us closer to getting what we need.

You fight a political battle (which involves cheering and jeering) when there is a time for it, when the balls are still in the air. But once the laws are decided, provided they fall at good enough place, I stop, move on, and appreciate whatever progress was achieved.

I appreciate Affordable Care legislation not because it includes all I'd like it to have. (Eg, I'd like to have a single payer system or at least the national coop.) But I appreciate it because it is progress, even if it is only the 1st or 2nd step.

There is no way this legislation can be currently altered in any major way. Well, it may be repelled but it will not move further to the left in any significant way, not soon at least. There is no political will for that. So, why to waste energy on criticizing what we have, if there is no way or inclination to change it.

A difference between Medz and me is that he is not willing to accept some of the compromises the Democrats made, they are deal breakers for him. For me, those compromises (well some of them like Obama care) indicate progress. This is not a dishonest position on my part (the term you used in two subsequent posts) and it is not an inconsistent position. It is a pragmatic (i.e., not-ideologically rigid) position.

By the way, speaking about ideologically rigid position, about 12 years ago Nader ran on the position that there are no significant differences between Gore and Bush and he is the real alternative. He got a few % of votes some, likely, from people who would have voted for Gore. In effect, he helped to elect arguably the worst administration in the recent history and surely one that pushed the country far to the right. That's one instance lending credence to my assertion that compromises are frequently a correct approach.

[mn3]

Originally Posted by DYNOMITE

... about the 99 vs 1%. So I find it troubling that President Obama really has no plans to fix it now. Why wait? Tackle it now instead of using it as a campaign issue. It plays the same come November, win or lose, if he is on the right side of it. Policy over politics is what we should all be in favor of.

It's not trite, and it is true: the Republicans have done everything they can to block every initiative, every nominee, every piece of legislation offered up by Obama. It takes 60 votes to bring most any matter up for debate in the Senate - and with a couple defectors on the Dem side (Nelson and one or two other Dems too scared of their shadows to stand on principle in their conservative states), the Republicans used their 100% participation in party line politics to blockade everything.

There just isn't any room for policy to be advanced. In Washington, the only game in town is crass politics - and it's only when crass politics demands it, that the opposition side ever votes in favor of anything that is attached to something that could be called policy.

If you are arguing that Washington is broken, I wholeheartedly agree. The fix would be for all sides to demilitarize and talk to each other like they were valued human beings with shared commitments to advance the public good.

[Stefan S]

No one would accuse Christian Science Monitor to come at it from far out leftist perspective. Here is what they report

Rick Santorum: Top 7 culture war moments

As a senator, Rick Santorum was one of the Republican Party's best-known culture warriors. From gay rights to abortion to women’s role in society, he could be counted on to promote the traditional point of view.
His 2005 book “It Takes a Family” – an answer of sorts to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “It Takes a Village” – was a New York Times bestseller.
Now, as a surging presidential contender, Mr. Santorum is still leading the charge, and facing questions about some of his old, and not so old, comments. Here’s a sample:
- Linda Feldmann, Staff writer



1. Keep military women away from the front lines

When the Pentagon announced Feb. 9 that it was shifting women closer to frontline combat, Santorum raised objections.

“I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved,” he said on CNN. “It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat. And I think that’s not in the best interests of men, women, or the mission.”

Turns out Santorum was referring to the emotions of men. Or at least that’s what he said the next day on NBC’s “Today Show.”

“When you have men and women together in combat, I think men have emotions when you see a woman in harm's way,” he said. “I think it's natural. It's very much in our culture to be protective. That was my concern.”

2. Bring back 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

Speaking of the military... At the Sept. 22, 2011, GOP debate, a gay soldier serving in Iraq asked a question via video clip: Would the candidates “circumvent the progress” gays and lesbians have made with the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a Clinton-era policy that had barred them from serving openly?

Before Santorum could reply, some audience members booed the gay soldier. Santorum went ahead with his response. (He later explained that he didn’t hear the booing, because he was thinking about what he would say.)

His first effort at an answer left some people scratching their heads: “Any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military,” he said. Then he criticized the repeal of DADT, calling it an attempt to “inject social policy” into military policy.

“What we're doing is playing social experimentation with our military right now,” he said. “And that's tragic.”

And yes, as president, he would reinstate DADT. But he would allow gay service members who had already come out to stay in the military. Sex “should not be an issue,” he said. “Leave it alone, keep it to yourself, whether you’re a heterosexual or a homosexual.”

Mitt Romney, in contrast, has said he would not restore DADT.

3. On 'the dangers of contraception'

In an Oct. 18, 2011, interview with the website CaffeinatedThoughts.com, Santorum shared his views on birth control, which are in keeping with the teachings of his Catholic faith.

“One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea,” said Santorum, who has seven children. “Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.’ It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

Sexual relationships “are supposed to be within marriage. They are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal and unitive but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen.

“We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out?

“And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it, and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong, but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.”

4. On how 'radical feminists' are undermining traditional family

In 2005, Santorum’s book, “It Takes a Family,” asserted that “radical feminists” are undermining families by convincing women they should work outside the home.

“Sadly the propaganda campaign launched in the 1960s has taken root,” the book says. “The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.”

When asked about the passage on ABC’s “This Week” Feb. 12, Santorum said he was unfamiliar with it, and that his wife, Karen, had written that part of the book. But then he added that when his wife quit her job to take care of their children, she felt people looked down at her.

“I think it's important that women, both outside the home and inside the home, are affirmed for their choices they make,” Santorum said on the show. “That they are, in fact, choices, and society, you know, treats them, in a sense, equally for whatever decision they make that's best for them.”

In a separate interview Feb. 12, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Santorum was asked if women with children need not apply to work in his administration, if he’s elected president.

“There will be plenty of working moms who will be in our administration,” he said.

[Stefan S]

5. On giving welfare to black people – or did he say 'blah' people?

Santorum is proud of his role in helping to enact welfare reform when he was a senator in the 1990s. Today, he says, more needs to be done to get people off public assistance and into the world of work. But in a speech in January, he seemed to frame the issue in racial terms – or did he?

Here’s what he appeared to say: "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families.”



When asked later on Fox News about the comment, he said he had been misunderstood.

“If you look at it, what I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and ‘blah’ came out,” Santorum said. “And people said I said ‘black.' I didn't. I said ‘blah.' "

He defended himself further from any suggestion of racism by saying that he had helped black colleges to get federal funding when he was a senator. Plus, he said, he doesn’t usually say “black.”

“I use the term ‘African American’ more than I use ‘black,’” he said.

6. On whether homosexual acts should be legal

This one dates back to April 2003, and it certainly helped put Santorum on the map as a culture warrior. It also led to his famous, and still unresolved, “Google problem.” An Associated Press reporter asked then-Senator Santorum about the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, and that led to a discussion about whether homosexuality should be legal. At the time, the Supreme Court was considering a case focused on whether states had the right to ban sodomy.

“I have no problem with homosexuality,” Santorum said in the interview, according to a transcript of the tape. “I have a problem with homosexual acts.”

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery,” Santorum said later in the interview. “You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.”

“You say, well, it’s my individual freedom,” he continued. “Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families.”

Further in the interview, he mentioned pedophilia and bestiality, and came to be seen as viewing homosexual sex in a similar vein. But in fact, he pointed out later, he was saying that homosexuality is not equivalent to “man on child” or “man on dog.”

In June 2003, the Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas ruling invalidated antisodomy laws around the country, on grounds of liberty. But Santorum has not eased up on his views of homosexual activity.

7. Gay marriage: Just say no with a constitutional amendment

On Feb. 13, the day that Washington legalized gay marriage, the seventh state to do so, Santorum visited on a campaign swing. And he didn’t mince words.

“I think it waters down marriage and I don’t think that’s what we need,” Santorum said in a meeting with state GOP lawmakers in Olympia. “We need to have a national consensus on this, a national debate. I believe we should move forward with a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.”

Santorum has said a constitutional amendment would invalidate the same-sex marriages already in effect.

But the former senator doesn’t just preach to the choir. After doing well (and eventually winning) the Iowa caucuses, where social conservatives dominate the GOP electorate, he went on to the more socially liberal New Hampshire. While appearing at a convention of college students in Concord, before that state’s Jan. 10 primary, he was booed after a lengthy exchange on gay marriage.

At one point, Santorum compared same-sex marriage to polygamy, according to ABC News.

“So anyone can marry anybody else? So if that’s the case, then everyone can marry several people … so you can be married to five people. Is that OK?” Santorum asked.

“Not what she’s asking!” a student yelled.

Rick Santorum: Top 7 culture war moments - Keep military women away from the front lines - CSMonitor.com

[Stefan S]

Does Rick Santorum have a Satan problem? - CSMonitor.com

...

“Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that [have] so deeply rooted in the American tradition,” Mr. Santorum said in that 2008 speech.

Audio excerpts from the speech indicate that Santorum said Satan had successfully subverted academia first, followed by mainline Protestantism, which he said is “in shambles,” and then the culture. Politics came last.

“The body politic held up pretty well until the last couple of decades,” he said in the speech.
...

audio clips: Santorum In 2008: Satan is Systematically Destroying America | MRCTV

[capnpaco]

I believe I've said it here before, but I'm not going to acknowledge Santorum as a serious candidate until/if he gets nominated. The problem is not that his views on human sexuality are increasingly out of touch with the mainstream, it's that he seems to see it as his job, if elected, to try to change the mainstream to be more in touch with him:

“One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea,”

President's don't talk about that because addressing the role of sex in society is NOT THE PRESIDENT'S JOB.

If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery,

I mean, this is just silly. Of course you have "the right to adultery." Polygamy and bigamy involve marriage, so, no, that right is not implied by the right to consensual sex, but having multiple partners is, for sure! The implication that "the right to consensual sex within your home" is somehow problematic, or should somehow be restricted by the government...

Seriously, when are they going to get it over with and nominate Romney already? There's only one candidate in that field who doesn't come off as a joke in a national election. I don't get why this is difficult for the Republican voters / primary process.

[capnpaco]

Originally Posted by DYNOMITE

Again you (almost daily) blamed the GOP for 40,000+ deaths a year. When Obamacare passed, you no longer mentioned the 40,000+/year that would still surly die because of the imperfect bill, Democrats. More politics over policy.

Medz used to be the biggest cheerleader for the Dems. He has not been happy with Obama and has no problem explaining why. Now election season is upon us and we are back to posting nonsense articles about people none of us here are openly supporting. Why not tell the crowd what the President is going to do to fix what is broke? I just posted an article that says he isn't planning on doing much to balance the tax issue. So it really doesn't matter if Romney pays little to no tax if the sitting President doesn't think the discrepancy is important enough to actual act on. Better to just parade Warren Buffet's secretary out for the State of the Union for the press op than to actually push legislation.

I agree that hyper-partisan cheer-leading is annoying, and there's a good bit of it in this thread on both sides of the aisle. I think Stefan specifically has defended himself pretty well on this though, but I'll chime in as well because I have some pretty similar views.

I voted for Obama because I thought that, compared to McCain, he would pass stuff that I liked more and disliked less. I feel the same way as far as Obama versus any of the current Republican nominees. There's a lot of things that he's done that were watered down versions of what I actually wanted (for example, the stimulus, health care bill, withdrawal from Iraq). The reason for this is probably some combination of three things:

1. There would be a lot of opposition in congress to the policies that I would want.
2. Obama doesn't want to spend the political capital to get the policies that I would want.
3. Obama doesn't actually want policies as liberal as I do.

That being said, the health care bill and stimulus that he did pass were better than the status quo was, and better than I think McCain would have done. And there are other areas, like taxes, where he hasn't improved things, but he also hasn't made them worse as far as I can tell.

You mentioned the whole 1% / 99%, thing, and if I understood correctly you said you were in favor of higher taxes on the rich. Your article said that Obama wasn't actually pushing for that, just talking about it. Fair enough. He's also not actually pushing to lower their taxes, as Bush did and as Romney and co seem like they want to. Classic case of lesser of two evils on that score. If I was much more of an idealist (and if our voting system didn't effectively punish people for voting 3rd party) I might advocate some sort of write in campaign to elect Bernie Sanders or the like for President, but as it is, Obama's the guy I'm going to vote for. I can find plenty of things that he's done that I could complain about, but he's still better than any feasible alternatives.

[Dave Bing]

The mad drumbeats towards war with Iran are nauseating. The debate last night showed some real fear-mongering and lies.

[DYNOMITE]

Originally Posted by Dave Bing

The mad drumbeats towards war with Iran are nauseating. The debate last night showed some real fear-mongering and lies.

None of those guys have a shot in the general election. They have lost touch with middle America. Their shot was the economy. I don't think the voters, even a majority of Republican voters, are buying what they are selling.

[hack]

That won't stop millions from parroting elsewhere the crap they heard from those candidates.

[Stefan S]

Originally Posted by hack

That won't stop millions from parroting elsewhere the crap they heard from those candidates.

that's the thing -- leaders are supposed to lead
and not just cater to the lowest possible denominator.

these "leaders" not only cater to the confusion, ignorance, and prejudice
but also lead people to even more confusion and prejudice.

[Medz]

Anyone who calls Ahmadinejad a "dictator" should automatically be disqualified from the race. If you don't even know the first thing about the country you're agitating to attack, you shouldn't be given a chance to make that decision when the time comes.

[DYNOMITE]

Originally Posted by Stefan S

that's the thing -- leaders are supposed to lead
and not just cater to the lowest possible denominator.

these "leaders" not only cater to the confusion, ignorance, and prejudice
but also lead people to even more confusion and prejudice.

They are not leaders, they are candidates for office, pandering for votes. For a guy who wanted Sarah Palin to run just for the entertainment, you should know the difference.

[DYNOMITE]

Originally Posted by hack

That won't stop millions from parroting elsewhere the crap they heard from those candidates.

So what? You gonna fix stupid? My mother-in-law is one of those Evangelical voters who thinks a candidates stated moral positions will translate into law. They don't. Bush had majorities in the House and Senate and didn't do a thing about abortion. So what's the point? She believes God is on Tim Tebow's side and you can't convince her a 40+ blow-out play-off lose proves she may be wrong. It doesn't matter what she believes because there are not enough of her to matter and she is ultimately just a sheep. She parrots among her own kind. So why should anyone else care?