Forum: pol
Page 3603
Subject: The Real Rick Santorum

  Posted by: Pancho Villa - [597172916] Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 11:12
Why not?
With Cain, Bachmann, Perry and Gingrich having fallen by the wayside, Santorum emerges as the new "anybody-but-Romney" candidate after his impressive showing in Iowa.

Incredibly, Santorum might actually have a chance to be the GOP nominee, even though he has virtually no national organization and little money. Ironically, his chances might hinge on the whims of Ron Paul, if Romney fails to wrap up the number of delegates needed prior to the convention.

Consider the following scenario:

New Hampshire is an open primary. I look for Ron Paul to run second behind Romney. Santorum will pick up much of the Perry/Bachmann/Gingrich supporters to finish third.

Next are South Carolina and Florida, states which could bode well for Santorum, even victories, especially in SC. Momentum is followed by money and volunteers. Ron Paul continues to run strongly, gathering a sizeable number of delegates along the way.

Santorum and Paul garner enough delegates between them to deny Romney the necessary number of delegates, leading to an open convention. Paul knows can't get either Romney or Santorum delegates to back him, so Paul delegates are the key to victory.

It's not unlikely to think Paul would back Santorum against the establishment candidate.

Obviously, a lot of circumstances would have to fall into place for Santorum to come out on top. But it isn't out of the realm of possibility.
 
1Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 11:23 		It is out of the realm of possibility. I think it's time Iowa step aside as the first primary/caucus. They now have a long history of promoting some long shot wing nut. It makes the most sense to ignore what happens in Iowa.

The race has been won by Romney. Ron Paul will stick it out to the end, he has the most ardent supporters and is serving as the Dennis Kuncinich of the race. No one else matters.
 
2Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 11:26 		It gets interesting very quickly. Without looking at recent polls. I think NH could play out in several ways. I wonder if Jon Huntsman couldn't pick up much of Perry's support in NH. I imagine Bachmann wasn't going to be very relevant there anyway so her exit might not benefit Santorum next week.

The momentum from last night's showing should be enough to propel Santorum to SC, even with a bad showing in NH.
 
3Boldwin
      ID: 5103310
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 11:27 		The last non-Mitt standing has @75% majority of republican votes minus the @20% Ron Paul segment.

Or to put it another way, if the non-Mitt/Non-Paul vote could or would or is forced to coalesce, it automatically is 2.5 times the size of Mitt's vote.

And then Romney's money crushes the last conservative standing with overwhelming negative advertising and the help of a compliant MSM.

The MSM who can't wait till they can focus their Obama love into exposing Romney's record of decrying every position he himself has ever taken.
 
4Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 11:35 		is forced to coalesce

That's the key right there. As Red State's Erikkson points out:



As Romney moves into presumptive nominee status typically discouragement sets in rather than consensus among the rabid right who populate these caucuses.

I dunno--maybe he'll pull a McCain and discourage the base right up until he picks an unqualified Veep who fires them up again.

New year. Same tune.
 
5Boldwin
      ID: 5103310
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 11:36 		I can almost feel sympathy for the MSM as they ponder the challenge of painting Milquetoast Santorum as a wild-eyed extremist.

I am guessing they will stick to calling him Earmark Santorum.
 
6Boldwin
      ID: 5103310
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 11:41 		BTW, don't count Newt out by any means. True, nice Newt can't win. Now we'll see if Bare-Knuckle Newt can simultaneously pummel an eminently vulnerable soft but rich target while dodging the MSM's barbs of 'Look how mean Newt is!'
 
7Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 11:51 		I believe Gingrich was still leading in SC recently so he likely still has a chance there but his national polling trend has matched his collapse in IA (indicating it wasn't negative ads, which primarily ran in IA, but Newt's own lack of discipline which led to his demise). I don't see another rebound in him unless Santorum, Paul or Romney gets arrested in an airport bathroom.
 
8Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 11:53 		a compliant MSM.


I refuse to allow the meaningless MSM tag be continually used without some type of documentation.

If you have a problem with media coverage, name the outlet and the media person you're accusing. Otherwise, it's simply an exercise in laziness.
 
9Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:03 		Milquetoast Santorum

You mean the guy who wants to ban birth control?

He's a guy who wants his own biases to have the force of law. If you think a guy who wants to nullify all gay marriages, put doctors in jail for performing abortions, expand the death penalty, expand federal surveillance of citizens, and essentially end diplomacy with people we aren't always friends with is "milquetoast" then you are far, far outside the mainstream of Americans.
 
10Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:13 		#8: I believe he refers to Charles Krauthammer, Ann Coulter and Peggy Noonan.

#9: Let's not forget that as senator he staunchly defended anti-sodomy laws and the enforcement of them by arresting people in their bedrooms. He also made a very strange comment about poor black people yesterday or Monday that didn't receive much play in the jumble of news but will surely get around. He's still brand new to the top of the heap. He hasn't been tested yet.
 
11Boldwin
      ID: 5103310
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:19 		What we know without naming the outlet or reporter.

Polling follows who the MSM declares as a viable candidate.

If they declare Newt is out of favor he will suddenly lose all the bandwagon support. In Iowa and everywhere.

A huge percentage of republicans are for whoever looks for the moment as the most likely to beat Obama. If the MSM reports that candidate is a syphilitic camel, syphilitic camel stock will rise.

Newt got no credit for staying positive, and he'll get killed by the MSM as a meany when he goes negative.

The media loves OWS and demonizing the 1%...

...while backing the two Goldman Sachs candidates. Did you know Goldman Sachs was heavily involved with Romney's Bain Capital?

Guess how the MSM will use that info after Mitt is nominated? Oh you'll be seeing stories about workers fired by Romney, jobs outsourced to foreign countries by Romney, heartless creative destruction by Romney, rich entitled one per center Romney. But strangely they'll wait till they succeed in getting him nominated.

Was the OWS astroturf created to distract the media from the Tea Party or was it tailored specifically to attack Romney?

Answer: Yes.

Don't tell me we can't talk about the media and don't call me lazy.

Oh, and compare how the MSM treats Romney's Goldman Sachs involvement with how they treat Obama's Goldman Sachs run administration. After the nomination.
 
12Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:23 		Don't tell me we can't talk about the media and don't call me lazy.

You're not talking about the media. You're talking about the MSM, a term with no identity, and it is lazy.

 
13Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:24 		More self-inflicted martyrdom by the right, it seems. You can't excuse a bad slate of candidates who never got traction in your own party on the MSM.

But strangely they'll wait till they succeed in getting him nominated.

You are clearing listening to the wrong media sources. These stories are already out there, getting play.

 
14Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:25 		Let me just say that if the MSM is as liberal and craven as you say, they don't want Romney: They want Bachmann. Or Santorum. Or Cain.

Basically they want a clearly flawed and gaffe-filled candidate from the fringe. They don't want an oily perennial second placer like Romney.
 
15Boldwin
      ID: 5103310
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:27 		Never got traction? Phhhht! Everyone I like except West took turns being in the lead. What race are you looking at?
 
16Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:32 		Polling follows who the MSM declares as a viable candidate.

This is bs. Santorum barely got better TV coverage than Huntsman, including at FNC. And no candidate has been characterized as unelectable moreso than Ron Paul.

The routine of flipping between the argument that American conservatives resent and reject "MSM" and the argument that they brainlessly do what "MSM" tells them (depending on which one suits Boldwin's point of the moment) is getting really old.
 
17Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:33 		Traction doesn't mean "rotating leaders." It means consistent forward movement by a candidate.

It certainly doesn't mean "each candidate, in turn flaming out after getting a closer look as the leader."
 
18Boldwin
      ID: 5103310
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:38 		Oh the MSM is dying to reprise the following video:

 
19Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:41 		What race are you looking at?

Better question: What media are you watching?

I went back and forth between CNN and Fox last night, and CNN was far and away the better informing outlet. They barely touched much on anything other than the actual returns, giving an accurate picture, county by county, of the vote count and comparing it to the county by county in 2008. Extraordinary reporting, though I can always do without commentary by James Carville.

It was Fox that concentrated more on the analysis of personalities, quite mundane and not nearly as informative as to the demographics that led to a 3 way race that was as exciting as any election in recent memory.

You want to comment on the media, then actually talk about the media and their reporting as opposed to whatever pre-conceived notions you have.
 
20Boldwin
      ID: 5103310
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:42 		MITH

They don't brainlessly react to the latest MSM flavor. They just want Obama beaten more than they care about which non-Romney wins. That is a reasonable position.
 
21DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:48 		"Phhhht! Everyone I like except West took turns being in the lead. What race are you looking at? "

Congratulations, your candidates took the lead by flooring it in Turn 1 of the Indianapolis 500, until everyone realized that they were completely unable to turn left* and thus crashed and burned.


*pun fully intended.
 
22Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:50 		12:19PM: Polling follows who the MSM declares as a viable candidate.

23 minutes later: They don't brainlessly react to the latest MSM flavor.

Case in point.
 
23Boldwin
      ID: 5103310
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:51 		Traction doesn't mean "rotating leaders." It means consistent forward movement by a candidate.

It certainly doesn't mean "each candidate, in turn flaming out after getting a closer look as the leader." - PD

Romney can outspend and focus on the current front-running non-Mitt 20-1 and the MSM provides another 100-1 in free promotion for Mitt who's always benefited from their presumptive winner label. They will help him tear apart the current front-running non-Mitt but they wait to tear apart Romney when it's so easy to do.

There is no shame in not easily shedding that kind of unfair advantage.

You guys don't mind the Citizen's United decision so much when it has an uneven effect on the republican primary season.
 
24Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:55 		Funny I recall Guiliani and Hilliary Clinton enjoying the same "presumptive winner" characterization leading up to the 2008 primary season.
 
25Boldwin
      ID: 5103310
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 12:55 		Case in point.

It's a calculated bandwagon jump. Not a brainless one.

If it was brainless they would have all been on the 'unstoppable' Mitt bandwagon from the beginning.
 
26Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 13:00 		So "MSM" has the ability to create a political "bandwagon" which the GOP base - who detests every last thing about MSM - will reliably jump on.

Sure buddy.
 
27Boldwin
      ID: 5103310
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 13:05 		They'd loooove to factor out the MSM, but that wouldn't be realistic.
 
28Boldwin
      ID: 5103310
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 13:13 		MITH

How many OWS supporters are gonna hold their nose and vote for the Goldman Sachs/MSM choice anyway? Why? Because they realize the media will get their way and bucking the MSM is a Sisyphus' feat.
 
29Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 13:15 		Ther are too many layers of absurdity to choose from. I'd love to know exactly how "MSM" directed the GOP base to support Bachmann, then Trump, then Cain, then Gingrich and then Santorum.
 
30Boldwin
      ID: 5103310
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 13:23 		I'm not saying the MSM would ever deliberately direct the base to support Bachmann. Nevertheless, if they for whatever reason declared Bachmann the likely winner it would have a bandwagon effect. Even if they begrudgingly did so. Even as they had to with Reagan whom they detested.
 
31Biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 13:37 		Why do you think the left would want Romney as the nominee? Anyone with any sense on the left would want what ever candidate Baldwin wants.
 
32Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 13:45 		Why do you think the left would want Romney as the nominee?

Because Boldwin is venting, and "MSM" = "the opposite of what I think."

It doesn't have to be consistent...
 
33Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 13:53 		?

So they accidentally directed the base to Bachmann and Trump and Gingrich and Santorum?

Can it really have nothing to do with these candidates personally turning off voters with their own words? It just isn't within the realm of possibility that a lot of Iowans were offended by the notion of their children and grandchildren staying after school to clean toilets and other off-message musings from Gingrich? Cain repeatedly displaying an embarrassing level of campaign mismanagement and shocking foreign policy ignorance?

Your argument is that the GOP base pays no mind to such matters and simply reacts to who "MSM" somehow indirectly leads them to believe is the GOP front runner to challenge Romney and beat Obama in November. Sounds pretty brainless to me but whatever.

Any chance you could provide some examples of "MSM" indirectly leading the base to view candidates as front runners just prior to their rise in the polls? I sure dont remember it that way so maybe you can show where I missed it.
 
34sarge33rd
      ID: 211332319
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 14:41 		If indeed, as B seems to imply, the "MSM" is able to direct the GOP base....rather than question the MSM's possible motives, how about we question the implied/apparent stupidity of the GOP base? I mean really, if we take B at his word here, is there anywhere in human history, a better example of the term "sheeple"?
 
35Boldwin
      ID: 321121173
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 18:07 		Media coverage is powerful. Negative and positive media coverage is powerful. Huge campaign warchests are powerful. The power to limit face time in debates is powerful. Negative political ads work no matter what people say.

You are being dishonest if you think it is braindead to weigh voting for West who you really like but the media tells you has zero chance, or for the guy who the media tells you has the best chance of beating Obama. That isn't sheeple behavior. That is complicated.
 
36sarge33rd
      ID: 211332319
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 18:14 		I think the candidate currently in the GOP race, with the best shot at beating Obama, came in dead last in Iowa.
 
37Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 18:22 		You are being dishonest if you think it is braindead to...

You're talking to a guy who voted for Ralph Nader twice, registered with the NYS Independance Party and really wanted to like Gary Johnson this year.
 
38sarge33rd
      ID: 211332319
      Wed, Jan 04, 2012, 18:42 		Funny you should say that MITH (G Johnson), since as it stands right now, he gets my vote. Obama lost my vote, when he signed the Def Auth Act for 2012 into law, with its internal allowances for detaining indefinitely, US citizens w/o charges, legal cousel or even requiring a hearing. Regardless of what else Obama does/did, that he went along with that travesty of justice, IMHO, makes him unfit for the office.
 
39walk
      ID: 348442710
      Thu, Jan 05, 2012, 10:22 		sarge, you vote for him, you could be giving a net vote to the republican nominee. You will have to follow your heart, and do your own calculus, but although I am not in favor of the Def Auth Act for 2012 that Obama signed, I am more in favor of the things he stands for than any of the republican nominees. I am not sure this is the same for you, but that's my overall personal conclusion.
 
40Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Jan 05, 2012, 10:58 		Not only that, but I don't believe, for a minute, that any of the Republicans running (except for Paul) would not sign the exact same thing--in fact, is likely to push for even more rights by the President.

That law is horrible, in spite of Obama's signing statement. And I can understand the disgust and dismay by those who would otherwise support Obama that he signed the thing.

But elections are about choices. And if the other choice would not only have signed the bill but pushed for a worse one then we have to look for our deal breakers elsewhere, IMO.
 
41walk
      ID: 348442710
      Thu, Jan 05, 2012, 11:17 		Yes, exactly, PD. For sure, regarding this particular policy and law, the republican nominee would surely concur, and like see that bet and raise it some. Along these lines, below is a link to an article from the NYT that recently sheds light on the role of executive powers by all of the current republican presidential nominees.

GOP Field has Broad View on Executive Power
 
42boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Jan 05, 2012, 12:06 		Interesting article, it seems that everyone loves power except maybe Paul. It is too bad Paul is such a staunch Libertarian he could possibly be leading the field, then again it would be hard for a party to get behind someone who wants to give up power. In Boldwinesgue style, it all MSM fault there liberal agenda is against Paul.
 
43sarge33rd
      ID: 211332319
      Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 00:17 		Paul and Johnson, have both come out publicly opposed to the DFAA 2012. Both are fringe candidates to be sure. I cant vote Paul, though he and Johnson REALLY arent all that different on many topics, because Paul has several years in Washington and has a network and contacts which Johnson does not. Paul is therefore I think, marginally more likely to be able to pass some of the loonier of his ideas, where Johnson I think would be less able. Both oppose the DFAA 2012, and while I am not normally a single issue voter, this single issue is the very crux of our Constitutional legal system. Its "one issue", which serves as the foundation upon which all else stands.
 
44walk
      ID: 348442710
      Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 10:14 		Interesting read on Senatorial History of Rick Santorum
 
45Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 10:36 		and here's Santorum repeating the same old tired mantra that if we allow gays to marry, "then everyone can marry several people … so you can be married to five people."

i am, however, impressed with his ability to refrain from the "adults and children" and "adults and animals" arguments for once.
 
46Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 11:54 		What's loony is spending 40% more than you collect, year after year after year......after year. I hope I don't have to add any more.
 
47sarge33rd
      ID: 211332319
      Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 11:57 		Spending is an issue, yes. But so he revenue stream and that is WAY down. Social assistance right now isnt so much "entitlement" spending, as it is "equipping the ship with life rafts". Get over it..its necessary...period.
 
48Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 12:00 		Regarding the link in #44, there are some who would argue that the NY Times, an MSM outlet, is performing a liberal hatchet job to discredit a conservative candidate, even though most of the article deals with actual facts, not opinions.

Then you have Newsmax basically parroting the NYT article this morning:

If rival candidates decide to go negative on Santorum, as they have on Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, they have plenty of material with which to work.

Santorum is beloved among "values voters" for his stand on abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues. But his record is rich in polarizing policy positions and questionable associations that support the contention that he is a Washington insider.

For example, his million-dollar-plus 2010 income included payments from a lobbying firm, an energy company engaged in controversial "hydrofracking," and a hospital conglomerate that was sued for allegedly defrauding the federal government.


Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired an opening salvo last weekend, charging that Santorum, 53, was a big spender in Congress who voted to raise the debt ceiling and approved such pork-barrel projects as Alaska's Bridge to Nowhere, a tea pot museum in North Carolina and an indoor rain forest in Iowa.

Blaming the MSM is a default position for those too lazy to take the time to do the due diligence required to offer honest analysis of the nomination process.






 
49Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Jan 06, 2012, 12:05 		Which is pretty much what Santorum was advocating when he was in the Senate.
 
50Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Tue, Jan 10, 2012, 16:44 		Allentown, PA’s Morning Call from April 7, 1994
U.S. Rep. Rick Santorum, R-Pittsburgh area, and Joe Watkins, a Philadelphia businessman who worked in the Bush White House, are seeking the Republican Senate nomination, creating the only true Senate primary race….Santorum and Watkins both called for a “comprehensive restructuring” of health care. But they differed sharply on what elements should comprise a basic benefits package.

Watkins would include mental health services, long-term care, prescription drug coverage, dental services and preventive care such as immunizations. Santorum would not. Both reject abortion services. Santorum and Watkins both oppose having businesses provide health care for their employees. Instead, they would require individuals to purchase insurance. Both oppose higher taxes on alcohol or tobacco to help pay for care. They also oppose government-run health care and disagree with controls on doctor or hospital fees. They would cap malpractice awards.
May 2nd, 1994:
Santorum and Watkins would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits. Both oppose abortion services and support limits on malpractice awards. Santorum says non-economic damages should not exceed $ 250,000, adjusted annually for inflation, and lawyers’ contingency fees should be capped at 25 percent. [...]

Santorum introduced the idea of a medical savings account, called Medisave, which has become part of the Gramm bill. Under it, workers would buy major medical insurance and could make tax-free contributions to a Medisave account, from which they would pay for preventive services.

 
51Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 12:30 		Looks like the final caucus numbers from Iowa give Santorum a 69 vote victory. Good news for him as Romney's support has flattened in SC despite a large money push. And Gingrich is moving up.
 
52Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 12:46 		Newt scored a huge win in the recent debates and Romney was weaker, more unsteady than usual.

Santorum just sliding sideways at best, that's all his personal campaigning skills can sustain. Santorum will only do as well as his organizational strength in each state. He brings nothing to the table.

Of course the MSM tried to spin Newts remarks as racist over-reaching pandering misteps, but the right new media and radio was ecstatic with his performance as was his base.

Palins glowing remarks in his favor were the cherry on top at the perfect time.

And here comes the MSM to Romney's rescue, always focused barrage on the leading conservative, dirty tricks benefiting Romney, done dirt cheap...for free even.

As in every single Obama election, the media digging thru the divorce of Obama's opponent.
 
53Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 10:16 		Say what you will about Santorum, but at least he's got his priorities straight.

Republican Rick Santorum is staying home in Philadelphia to be with this hospitalized daughter and is canceling campaign stops in Florida.


Santorum's campaign says the former senator will stay in Pennsylvania with 3-year-old Bella, who has a genetic condition known as Trisomy 18. The condition typically proves fatal and Santorum often says his daughter wasn't expected to live past 12 months.

Spokesman Hogan Gidley says Santorum hopes to return to a campaign schedule soon.
link
 
54Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 10:38 		Alan Colmes is probably combing the situation for liberal yuks.
 
55sarge33rd
      ID: 211332319
      Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 13:09 		54..absolutely unnecessary.

53..Indeed PV, THAT is family values in action.
 
56Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Jan 30, 2012, 13:50 		The dead baby thing with Santorum was weird. Flat out weird. Forcing your kids to have their pictures taken with your dead infant sibling? Yeah, out there.

But Colmes was wrong to make jokes about it, however.

Santorum has always put his family as his first priority, even while Senator here. Doesn't mean he would make a good President, but he is absolutely pro-Santorum Family.
 
66Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sat, Feb 04, 2012, 13:17 		Phyllis Schlafly supporting Santorum in the Missouri "beauty contest."
 
67Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Sat, Feb 04, 2012, 14:37 		Naturally, because she is on the social conservative side first.
 
68Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 10:25 		Huge night for Santorum, sweeping all three contests, including two(Colorado and Minnesota) that Romney won handily 4 years ago.

After Florida and Nevada, Romney looked like he had a clear path to the nomination. Odds are he probably still prevails, given his organization, funding and ability to garner enough delegates even in states he doesn't win. But it isn't a given if support for Santorum continues to gather steam, which looks a lot more probable after last night, especially with Santorum's showing in Colorado.
 
69Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 10:46 		The ambivalence of the GOP primary voter continues, I think.
 
70Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 11:19 		A poll earlier this week showed Santorum doing the best against Obama among the GOP candidates.
That's the crux of the situation. That's why Gingrich has folded, because head to head with Obama, Newt gets smoked.

I think there will be incredible pressure on Gingrich now to bow out, but his ego probably will prevent that from happening.
 
71Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 11:26 		I agree. I also think (and just posted elsewhere) that the contraception controversy is one that Democrats simply are not taking seriously. Despite efforts by the Administration (and progressives) to pooh-pooh the whole thing, it just isn't smart to agitate a Church in which 25% of Americans belong.

Santorum's ability to reach grassroots conservative Christians can't be overstated--Romney has no real pull with those people, and so they have been faced with either staying home, going with Gingrich's Way Bay Machine, or supporting Romney. The Administration should not give them a reason to get all ginned up for this election.

Obama needs to come to some compromise on that issue (as they did on the anti-abortion funding in the original bill) to cool down the large number of potential conservative Catholic voters.
 
72nerveclinic
      ID: 4711362616
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 12:00
PD is it specifically the "morning After" pill or is it all contraception. Why is it an issue with Catholics what non Catholics do, if the Catholics don't want to take the morning after pill they don't have to but in a country with separation of church and state why should they dictate to everyone?
 
73Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 12:05 		The morning after pill isn't covered. The issue is whether the law forces the Catholic Church, in providing health care insurance to its own employees, are also forced to pay for contraception as the law currently provides.

They aren't dictating to everyone--just their own employees.

There is some question as to whether the Church should, indeed, be dictating to its employees (particularly the non-Catholics in their employ), but the Administration seems to be taking virtually none of the outcry very seriously.

Like the abortion coverage in the original bill, however, this outcry has the strong potential to overturn the apple cart.
 
74Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 18:55
In winning approval of a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. health care system in 2010, President Barack Obama and congressional leaders had to placate a small but pivotal group of Democratic lawmakers: those who opposed abortion on religious grounds. These politicians were promised that decisions on federal mandates involving reproductive issues – including not just abortion but contraception – would be made with sensitivity.

This prompted the administration to exempt churches and other houses of worship from the requirement that most employer insurance plans cover birth control, including the “morning-after” pill, as a preventive service for women. Last month, however, the administration announced that beginning Aug. 1, 2013, church-run institutions such as hospitals, colleges and charities must comply with the insurance requirement – and a firestorm quickly built in opposition.

---

Before the bill's passage...all involved needed to acknowledge the issue “has both moral and spiritual dimensions” – and that Americans should “honor the conscience of those who disagree.” - Obama, Notre Dame, May 2009---bill signed into law March 22, 2010
As I've already stated before, and PD keeps denying, the abortifacient 'morning after' pill is included in the requirement being placed on Catholics.

This isn't Catholics forcing their views on others. This is Obama forcing his immorality on them.
 
75Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 19:03
"In a shocking turn-around, Massachusetts’s Governor Mitt Romney announced yesterday," which would have been December 8th, 2005, "that Roman Catholic and other private hospitals in the state will be forced to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims under new state legislation, regardless of the hospitals’ moral position on the issue. The Republican governor had earlier defended the right of hospitals to avoid dispensing the 'morning-after pill' on the grounds of moral dissent. The Boston Globe reported that Romney’s flip on the issue came after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday," again, we're talking 2005 here, "that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute related to the abortifacient pill." The morning-after pill.
- Rush Limbaugh

And you are amazed Santorum, the social conservative just got a boost and Romney just got trounced in states he's won before.
 
76Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 19:08 		No, this is about the Catholic Church and whether they have the right to force their employee health insurance plans to match the Church teachings.

You might believe that answer to be "yes" (I might, as well) but it isn't about forcing anyone to be immoral. Just as it isn't forcing the Catholic business owner to commit a sin by continuing to purchase employee insurance plans which cover contraception.

Just to be clear, I'm talking specifically about RU486, which causes early term abortions and is not covered under the AAC. Plan B and other "morning after" pills are essentially oral contraceptives in concentrated doses and only works pre-implantation.
 
77Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 19:17 		Just read this letter from Sen Collins.

Her point about the mandate being on the insurance companies vs the employers is something I've not thought about, or seen. If this means that insurance companies have to have contraception included in all its plans then I'm not sure there is a real difference, since a non-contraception coverage plan would not occur for employers looking to buy one. But maybe they meant it in more of a meta way (that an insurer could not delete such coverage from all their plans. Or not have the ability to tag such coverage onto a plan).

This might be a very simple way out of this. I'm going to do a little more digging, and look forward to Sen Collins legislative prescription/clarification.
 
78Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 19:18
Claim: “Drugs that cause abortion are not covered by this policy: Drugs like RU486 are not covered by this policy, and nothing about this policy changes the President’s firm commitment to maintaining strict limitations on Federal funding for abortions. No Federal tax dollars are used for elective abortions.”

Response: False.The policy already requires coverage of Ulipristal (HRP 2000 or “Ella”), a drug that is a close analogue to RU-486 (mifepristone) and has the same effects.[i] RU-486 itself is also being tested for possible use as an “emergency contraceptive” – and if the FDA approves it for that purpose, it will automatically be mandated as well. - The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, article title: White House Misrepresents Its Own Contraceptive Mandate
 
79Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 19:22 		Drugs that are not approved by the FDA are not covered. Very simple stuff.
 
80Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 19:32 		I see, if it's obama's word vs The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, we know who you are going to believe. Simple stuff. Predictable.
 
81Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 19:34 		Simple
 
82Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 19:38 		Gyn doctor: Ella acts the same and is a slight tweak away chemically from it's parent molecule, RU487.
 
83Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 19:44 		I know that you tend to overlook or reject solutions to problems you are ginned up about, but please do try to read the letter linked to in #77.

And if you are going to start agreeing with Catholic doctrine, I'll have to say I am agreeing more and more with JW teaching on you folks staying away from political discussions.

:)
 
84Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 19:51 		That link in #77 in no way contradicts the fact that Obama is forcing catholic institutions to pay for an abortifacient and thus violate their beliefs.

Something Stupak was promised would never happen. He was assured the AHA would not force us to pay for abortion, the bill NEVER would have passed without that assurance.
 
85sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 20:27 		It does not violate "their beliefs". Providing for COMPREHENSIVE health care, does not and is not, the same as committing a sin. Thus, it does not violate their beliefs.

Kneejerk reaction, by reactionaries, trying to stir up a bunch of garbage vs solve the nations ills.

Not unike the House recently taking the time to pass a resolution stating that the GWB tax cuits did not add to the deficit. Just trying to deny the obvious, instead of tackling meaningful issues. Here, reactionaries are trying to make something of nothing, instead of addressing real issues.

I believe, it is generally called "deflection".
 
86Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 20:39 		They aren't forced to do anything, for the simple reason that the Church isn't forced to provide health care insurance for its employees.

But should they do, so, the law provides that it do so in certain ways.

I fully expect the Obama administration to come up with a way for religious employers to opt out of this thing in some fashion.
 
87Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 21:40 		Birth control is not generally needed for basic health care. There are some exceptions and as I said in the other thread, I wouldn't be surprised if the church allowed birth control to be paid for by the plan in those cases if prescribed by a doctor.

The church has a set of morals that states that any type of contraception is immoral. Requiring them to pay for that makes them violate their moral beliefs.

The churches stance on abortion is also based on their moral beliefs and is equally wrong for them to try and force their beliefs on others.

 
88DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 22:00 		Strangely, perhaps, I think I'd be the most OK with insurers being required to cover this stuff in practice (that being the public interaction), and the church being able to not employ someone who chose to actually use it (that being the private one). That would seem to satisfy everyone's requirements adequately.

(I'd still think the church was idiotic and full of crap for doing so, but that's a separate issue.)

Maybe it's a distinction without a difference.
 
89sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 22:30 		The Church isnt required to "pay" for the contraception. The insurance company is required to "pay" for it.
 
90Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 22:44 		The Church isnt required to "pay" for the contraception. The insurance company is required to "pay" for it.

There is the distinction without a difference.

When it inevitably goes single payer government insurance you'll be still repeating that rationalization, the one you promised Bart Stupak and his [catholic?] holdouts they would never be forced to pay for.
 
91sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Wed, Feb 08, 2012, 23:53 		The Church itself, is exempted from the requirement anyway. Its affiliates that are subject, and those affiliates employ MANY non-Catholics.

What B exactly, gives the Church the right to force ITS believes, down the throat of one who practices a different faith? (ie, a Catholic hospital, employs a Methodist RN. Why would you say the Church {ministary NOT being the primary focus of the hospital} be enabled to force its contentions on that RN?)
 
92Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 00:12 		sarge: The payment for the service, ultimately, comes from premiums paid by the companies. To say that the insurance company is paying isn't seeing the whole picture. Anything the insurance company has to pay will be ultimately paid for by the insured.

Boldwin is right is his first assertion that there is no difference. Do you really think there would be anything an insurance company would pay that they won't require their customers to pay through premiums, co-pays, or both?

The second part of #90 is the usual slippery slope fantasy that keeps the Far Right into their comfort zone of righteous indignation against evil.
 
93Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 08:49 		Birth control is not generally needed for basic health care.

Bingo! Health insurance is supposed to be reserved for unexpected or ongoing health issues, not personal choices like birth control pills or morning after pills. This results in higher premiums for everyone.

That said, there should be an avenue for low income women who are sexually active to have access to these products, as it's in society's best interest to have as few unwanted pregnancies as possible.

Oh wait...there is such a place...Planned Parenthood.
 
94biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 08:51 		Now Pancho. I've warned you before. You gotta stop making so much damn sense.
 
95Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 10:58 		Birth control is not generally needed for basic health care.

Bingo! Health insurance is supposed to be reserved for unexpected or ongoing health issues

Hogwash! Birth control is the penultimate preventive medicine.
 
96Biliruben
      ID: 358252515
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 11:46 		Well yeah. What that has to do with insurance, I'm not sure. That model is demostrably broken.

Question everything.
 
97sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 12:57 		re 92: Yes PD, I am aware that services provided for will be charged to the purchaser. My point is, by requiring insurance companies to include the coverage vs requiring the Church to purchase additional coverage, religious freedom is not involved. COMMERCE is involved and the Fed Govt has every right to regulate interstate commerce.
 
98sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 12:58 		agree entirely with 95. Providing BC costs FAR less, than providing care for a deliuvery, a newborn and beyond.
 
99Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 13:11 		I agree with 95 also, that doesn't change the fact that the law is wrong. If we are going to take the stance that we are going to force companies to pay for anything that is cheaper, we need to start writing a bunch more laws.

We should also require that anyone on welfare take required birth control. It would be cheaper in the long run.

 
100Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 13:17 		There is a *huge* difference between requiring people to take it, and giving them a means to access.

We should, indeed, allow those on welfare to have cheap or free access to birth control. We shouldn't require its use.

The problem isn't that people aren't forced to take birth control. The problem is that many have no access to it. Solving the wrong problem isn't going to help the fiscal problem that travels with it.
 
101sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 13:24 		FTR, what do you imagine the premium diffrerence is between two identical plans EXCEPT the one provides for BC pills and the other doesnt? I'd be inclined to believe that *IF* the employer in question, provided the same payment they do on the plan w/o as they do on the plan with; the recipient would be willing to pay the premium difference as a particpatory payroll withholding thing.

In that case, the Church is NOT providing for anything which is cntrary to its theologic position. (Not that I think they are anyway)
 
102Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 15:31 		Re: 100 I'm sorry, I hadn't realized that you could only buy birth control through an insurance plan. I'm now glad that this law is being passed so that everyone now has a means to access it.

Re: 101 For the majority of health insurance plans, the majority of the cost is covered by the employer, usually at least 75% of the total cost. By requiring the inclusion you are forcing a group to support something they are morally opposed to. Does this possibly result in a higher cost, it very well could, but the organization is willing to bear that higher cost to act in a manner that supports their beliefs. Chic-Fil-A is not open on Sunday, due to their beliefs and not only loses sales, but often has to pay a penalty to the malls they are in for not being open. Should we pass a law that requires them to be open so everyone has a chance at a yummy sandwich on Sundays?

 
103sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 15:34 		For the majority of health insurance plans, the majority of the cost is covered by the employer, usually at least 75% of the total cost.

That depends entirely on the industry. In many commission only industries...often times ZERO is paid by the employer.
 
104Mith
      ID: 37838313
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 15:39 		Never question Sarge's eagerness to tell groups he doesn't belong to and clearly doesn't understand what they should think or should be offended by.
 
105Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 15:41 		Many plans do not cover birth control in any form. Going to your doctor to get advice on birth control, the actual contraceptives, etc. are out-of-pocket costs. So yeah, the ability of people to get access to that care is more limited than you would think.

Your point is like saying that people have access to health care in general without insurance. Which is often true, but misses the point of the cost and availability.

Which, as PV points out, is why Planned Parenthood exists and is so widespread.

You didn't respond to the point about requiring people on welfare to take birth control. Perhaps you've rightly backed away from that stance? The current debate is about whether the Catholic Church should pay for people to have access to birth control. Can you imagine the fury of a Church facing a government which requires the Catholic poor to take birth control?
 
106sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 16:13 		104? WTF is that all about?

 
107Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 16:16 		My required birth control point was tongue in cheek, I don't support it. I agree with PV that Planned Parenthood should be supported and I would support more Federal Aid to Planned Parenthood, including subsiding of abortions.

What I don't support is our government trying to define morality to its citizens.
 
108sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 16:19 		What I don't support is our government trying to define morality to its citizens.

Entirely agree. Of course, because BC would be available under the plan, doesnt mean one MUST use it. But having it available, leaves that option there for those who choose it. Just as any other choice, by providing the choice, you really are not legislating morality. By denying the option, you are.
 
109Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 16:56 		By not subsidizing it, individuals are still free to obtain and use it on their own. By forcing an employer to subsidize it, you are forcing them to pay for something they morally object to. Why must the employer be forced to provide something they morally object to? If an employee does or doesn't want to use it has no bearing on the issue. The government is forcing their view of morality. That scares me and I don't like it.

 
110Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 17:11 		It's not a question of morality with me. It's a question of personal responsibility. If you want birth control, that's fine, either go buy it or get it at PP or some other similar clinic.

Should health insurance plans provide diet pills for obese persons as mandatory parts of their plans, or should obese people take responsibility for their actions and either quit eating 10 Whoppers a day, join a gym, or both? Should the health insurance plan have to pay for the gym membership? Is that preventive medicine?

What about smokers? Nicotine gum as mandatory part of health plans?

 
111Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 17:13 		Health insurance should have a preventative component to their coverage. Otherwise they are always playing catch-up. Expensive catch-up, to boot.

 
112sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 17:59 		Frick..thats why I suggested earlier; compute the premiums of th eplan with and w/o the BC. Let the employee, puick up the additional charges for the "with" vs the "without". Now, the employer isnt providing ANYTHING extra, outside of the OPTION to have available, what 90%+ of the people already use anyway.
 
113sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 19:13 		policy fiercely debated within the WH

IN a nutshell, it is a clear case of "politics as usual". The bottom line, in my mind is here in the story however:

For these advocates, this issue was logical and based on science: birth control saves women's lives, reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies, and is a fundamental issue of a woman controlling her own health care.

It saves lives and reduces unwanted pregnancy. That in turn, will reduce abortion. That, is what everyone wants.
 
114Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 20:07 		Sure, but that's not the entire picture. Catholics certainly have a right not only to their beliefs on the matter, but their own facts that those who practice true Catholic beliefs also are engaging in life-saving and unwanted pregnancy acts.

I'm certain that this will get sorted out in some sort of a compromise, but if the White House is of the belief that all the facts are not only in their hands but out weigh religious belief then they really are complete fools.

What might occur is that employers will offer a contraception-only option, with premiums paid entirely by the employee, as an add-on to whatever policy they currently have.

This will, by the way, force Catholic diocese around the country to disband their own insurance companies (most are self-financed as a workaround of state-mandated contraceptive coverage. Self-financed companies are not subject to those state rules).
 
115Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 20:12 		I really think this is more about the abortion pills than the birth control. But they hand condoms around like party favors at school. Why would anyone not be able to afford birth control so that we would 'need' to destroy freedom of religion over it?
 
116Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 20:15 		I find it interesting how easily some 'compromise' away religious freedom.
 
117Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 20:20 		Who said this would happen? Besides, who are you to say that an agreement the Catholic Church makes would be them compromising their religious freedom?
 
118Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 20:22 		You are the one predicting a compromise.
 
119Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 20:23 		they hand condoms around like party favors at school.

Not at my kids' schools, but I'd be OK with it if they did.
 
120Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 20:25
#118: You are the one who predicted the Church would give up religious freedom. For some reason.

I am predicting that the Obama administration would compromise. Not that the Church would.
 
121sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 20:27 		They apparently dont hand them out in TX schools either. TX, with its abstinance only education under Perry, is nr 2 in the nation in teen pregnancy per 1,000 teenage girls in the state. They trail,(IIRC) by 1 pregnancy every 10,000 girls...New Mexico.
 
122Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 20:28 		Sarge, government mandated morality is ok, as long as you happen to agree with the proposal? Now, when that morality affects someone else directly (e.g. murder, rape) I think we all agree that should be government mandated. When it doesn't affect someone else directly, like birth control, I don't want government determine what is and isn't moral. I'm having a tough time trying to think of another law that tries to force the government's view of morality like this one does. The fact that it mainly applies to religious organizations seems to have given it a bit of a pass. The best example that I can think of is prohibition and that didn't exactly turn out as well as expected. A similar argument could be made for the laws against narcotics, but I wouldn't vote against marijuana laws as it is again an attempt to legislate morality.

I agree that having a preventative measures will save money for companies in the long run. I know that my employer has smoking cessation programs, discounted weight watchers and an discount on health insurance premiums for completing an annual health assessment. Those programs all have a cost, but probably save my employer money in the long run. They weren't government mandated, but were initiated by my employer because it saves them money.
 
123Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 20:32 		Stay classy, Cal Thomas.
 
124sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 22:43 		122...Frick, requiring that BC be available, is not mandating morality. PROHIBITING BC OTH, IS mandating morality. At least, thats how I see it.

If the mandate provides the individual with the option to use or not use, that is not a moral mandate. If however, the mandate makes the option either unavailable OR mandatory in use, that is a moral mandate. But to legislate that the choice be present? No morality being mandated there. Free will, is left to make the choice.
 
125Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 22:55 		But the law doesn't make birth control available. Birth control is already available. The law is requiring employers pay for birth control. Some employers feel that birth control is immoral, thus you are forcing them to act in an immoral manner.

Employees could still purchase birth control, the church isn't going to fire employees for taking it.

If the government wants to provide more funding to Planned Parenthood I would support. If the government wanted to subsidize or provide tax incentives for birth control, I would support that. I don't support requiring an employer to act in a manner that they deem is against their moral code. And by making them assist in the payment of birth control, the law is doing that.

 
126sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Thu, Feb 09, 2012, 23:39 		The law does not require empoyers to pay for it. The law requires it be offered in the insurance. MOST employers, do not pay for the employees insurance coverage, but pass at least part of that cost along.

Assume for a moment, Plan "A", which complies in all ways except that it doesnt offer BC, has a premium of $100. (to make the math EZ), and the employer pays 70%. Employee share: $30.

Now, Plan "B" is identical to plan "A" except that it does provide for BC. Premium $110. Employer pays $70 and employee pays $40.

Nowhere at all, is the employer being required to pay for anything that violates their theology.
 
127Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 08:45 		Most employers of full time jobs pay for at least a portion, if not the majority of health insurance for their employees. The funds that go into the insurance fund are not discrete and no accounting is done to show where different parts of the funding go. I'm also not sure that your proposed option B would be legal as it is now discreminating against some employees. And if the insurance premium was higher based on the amount of the BC prescription, what is the point of the law? A person could just go to the pharmacy and buy the prescription themselves. And do you have different premiums based on the BC that a person buys? That sounds like an easy administrative burden.

PD, when you say their own insurance companies and are self financed, do you mean self insured? Typically companies that are self-insured have a 3rd party to administer their plan and all of the medical costs are paid by the employer plus a fee to the 3rd party manager. Are those types of plans exempt as well? That is a fairly easy solution for larger groups, but has some very tough economies of scale for smaller groups.
 
128Tree
      ID: 8159108
      Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 10:14 		White House to Announce Contraception Rule 'Accommodation' for Religious Organizations

obviously, we'll need to see what these accomodations are.

i'm sure the Republican response will be that the White House is flip-flopping and still is "assaulting" religion, but the reality here is that this is likely compromise, a word that sadly has been forgetten in the conservative lexicon, or at the very least has come to mean "weak" for those folks...
 
129Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 10:15 		PD#120

If there is a compromise, we all lose a religious freedom test case.

No compromise is possible. They either get forced to pay for something that violates their religion or they don't.

Obama is on the run. They either force Obama to cave entirely or they've prostituted their religion just a little to appease the devil. And can you really be just a little bit prostitute?
 
130Tree
      ID: 8159108
      Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 11:12 		yep. #128 was quite predictive (granted, it was predicting the obvious), at least in predicting the post immediately after.

Obama is on the run. They either force Obama to cave entirely or they've prostituted their religion just a little to appease the devil.

Obama is hardly the devil. but, i suppose it's the natural progression of people not knowledgable enough to believe him a marxist/socialist/alinskyist.
 
131Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 11:56 		they've prostituted their religion just a little to appease the devil.

The Catholic church has been prostituting itself for centuries. Just over 70 years ago:

Archbishop Konrad Gröber of Freiburg was known as the “Brown Bishop” because he was such an enthusiastic supporter of the Nazis. In 1933, he became a “sponsoring member” of the SS. In 1943, Grober expressed the opinion that bishops should remain loyal to the "beloved folk and Fatherland", despite abuses of the Reichskonkordat.[46] After the war, however, he claimed to have been such an opponent of the Nazis that they had planned to crucify him on the door for the Freiburg Cathedral.

Bishop Wilhlem Berning of Osnabrück sat with the Protestant Deutsche Christen Reichsbishop in the Prussian State Council from 1933 to 1945, a clear signal of support for the Nazi regime.

Cardinal Adolf Bertram ex officio head of the German episcopate also had some affinity for the Nazis. In 1933, for example, he refused to intervene on behalf of Jewish merchants who were the targets of Nazi boycotts, saying that they were a group “which has no very close bond with the church.”

Bertram sent Hitler birthday greetings in 1939 in the name of all German Catholic bishops, an act that angered bishop Konrad von Preysing.[46] Bertram was the leading advocate of accommodation as well as the leader of the German church, a combination that reigned in other would-be opponents of Nazism.[46]

Bishop Buchberger of Regensburg called Nazi racism directed at Jews “justified self-defense” in the face of “overly powerful Jewish capital.”

Bishop Hilfrich of Limburg said that the true Christian religion “made its way not from the Jews but in spite of them.”

link

Birth control among Catholics is wide spread and accepted as a normal part of day to day life, in full defiance of church hierarchy, a hierarchy that has either promoted genocide(Incas, Aztecs)or sat idly by while wholesale human slaughter was being routinely carried out down the street.
 
132Tree
      ID: 381511011
      Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 12:52 		Obama announces contraception compromise

Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees. Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to any women who work at such institutions.

Female employees at churches themselves will have no guarantee of any contraception coverage -- a continuation of current law.

 
133Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 12:54 		Well, there you go. Religious liberty compromised. Antichrist due next Tuesday.
 
134Tree
      ID: 91361012
      Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 13:37 		crap. i knew i should have waited to buy my ticket. i'm on AntiChrist Express for Monday.

missed it by THIS much. damn my luck.
 
135Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 14:20 		I don't see this compromise working for a couple of reasons. It goes back to Sarge's solution. While the cost might not be explicit, it is going to be implicitly passed back to the religious organizations.

How does this work if the religious institution is self-insured?

Isn't this law aimed at a relatively specific small number of employers and employees? If the goal was to make birth control available to every women, why isn't their a law that every employer must offer at least birth control coverage. Or just subsidize it nationally and any women could go to any pharmacy and get a prescription.

Does this law really apply to anyone outside of religious institutions?
 
136sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 14:36 		Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge...

That wasnt my proposed solution, but IMO, is better. NO cost, for the BC portion, is passed along. None.
 
137Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 14:40 		The religious institutions are not charged for the coverage. Sounds like they are about to mandate that insurers give away the coverage.

Given how much new business they are getting from the Affordable Care Act, and how much this would save them money in the end, this is a great deal for them.
 
138Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 16:15 		Neither insurance companies nor any other company are in business to give stuff away.

Obama neither has the constitutional power 1) to tell people what insurance products they must buy, 2) Companies what they must sell or give away, 3) Religions what they must support regardless of their religious principles.

So he is just gonna juggle between unconstitutional dictatorial powers until he manages to acquire one of them.

He promised that Americans would not be forced to pay for abortion. Insurance companies aren't gonna give it away for free. They would just bill us all in the form of increased costs, including to the religious who are unalterably opposed to abortion.

This isn't a compromise. It's just looking for a middleman to deliver the bill for abortion. A payment he promised would never be required.
 
139sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 20:49 		You are just unable to grasp, that you are on the fringe and in the definitive minority, huh B?
 
140Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 22:23 		Reagan
 
141Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Feb 10, 2012, 23:05 		That's your rebuttal? The guy you adore but can't bring yourself to actually emulate?
 
142Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Sat, Feb 11, 2012, 00:36 		The guy you adore but can't bring yourself to actually emulate?

adore? he doesn't even know what the guy stood for nor what made him a great leader (hint: it starts with "the ability to" and ends with "compromise.")
 
143DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Feb 11, 2012, 04:54 		Post 140 reminds me (both for the obvious, and for the level of dementia displayed) of: link
 
144sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sat, Feb 11, 2012, 09:08 		to finish the thought that was started in 140:

...bears no resemblance to what todays GOP stands for. We, are solidly entrenched, in the 19th century and by gawd we're gonna drag the rest of you back with us.
 
145Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Sat, Feb 11, 2012, 21:46 		Aaaaand the autotrophs began to drool.
 
146Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sun, Feb 12, 2012, 00:33 		Desperate "real" conservatives demonstrate serial love, giving Santorum a commanding national lead in PPP poll.

Someone pinch me. Obama's so happy I hear he's got Biden passing out condoms outside St. Patrick's. Santorum lost by 19 points last time he ran. If Santorum starts taking states, Obama isn't going to need to wait until November before taking GOP scalps on legislation.
 
147Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Sun, Feb 12, 2012, 16:14 		Aaaaand the autotrophs began to drool.

as usual, you're talking out of your butt. which is your normal response when you don't have anything to say.
 
148Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Sun, Feb 12, 2012, 18:39 		Santorum wasn't able to gather the required 500 signatures to appear on the ballot in Indianapolis, from a Republican friend in Indy he was 8 signatures short.
 
149Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sun, Feb 12, 2012, 19:35 		You would have thought Indiana would have been a relatively easy state for him to get on the ballot. Too bad.
 
150Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 00:57 		#123: Cal Thomas called and apologized to Maddow.

Had to be an interesting conversation. But apology offered and accepted. Good for Cal Thomas. And Maddow.
 
151Razor
      ID: 551031157
      Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 12:38 		How does Fox News not reprimand someone after a disgusting, unprovoked personal attack like that?
 
152DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 13:01 		Reprimand? I'm pretty sure he's in line for a bonus check from them.
 
153Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 20:08 		If it involved Maddow, there was provocation. Not quite Keith Olberman provocation, but close.
 
154Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Mon, Feb 13, 2012, 20:32 		It looks like Santorum will most likely be on the Indiana primary ballot. But if he isn't, it could be very interesting as to why.

Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney's Indiana co-chairman could decide whether opponent Rick Santorum makes it onto the state's May primary ballot.

Dan Dumezich is guiding Romney's effort to win Indiana. He also chairs the Indiana Election Commission, which considers challenges to candidates' ballot access. Santorum is eight signatures shy of the 500 needed from Indiana's 7th District.

Five voters filed challenges to Santorum's candidacy Monday. The four-member, bipartisan Election Commission then would have to make a decision by March 1.

Dumezich says he has no plans to recuse himself from a vote if Santorum's access is challenged.

"In my mind I can always maintain my objectivity," he said, adding that the election commission tends to err on the side of ballot access when it hears challenges.

Santorum supporter state Sen. Mike Delph says he's confident Dumezich will be fair and that Santorum's name will be on the May ballot.

"I know and believe him to be a man of integrity, and I know he will do the right thing," Delph said.

Voters have until the end of the week to file challenges to candidates they believe should not be on the ballot. Republican gubernatorial candidate Jim Wallace came up 14 signatures short in the 7th District, but Indiana Election Division co-director Brad King said the only challenges filed so far were against Santorum.

Statewide candidates had to collect 500 signatures from registered voters in each of the state's nine congressional districts in order to qualify for the ballot.
 
155Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 15:12 		Why did Santorum lose in 2006?

A good article which recaps his huge loss the last time he ran. I realize that many on the Far Right look at his uncompromising stances as a plus, but in this purple state he lost moderates and independents by big numbers:

But there was one more thing that hurt him as well, and that was what might be called the Rick Santorum issue. In the Senate as well as in his home state, Santorum often struck people as arrogant and headstrong, preachy and judgmental. Even today, he believes what he believes strongly and can sometimes become so involved in an argument that he seems focused more on winning the argument than reaching some sort of useful agreement. Throughout his career Santorum has always maintained that his forthrightness means everyone always knows where he stands. Sometimes that means people know they don't like him.
 
156Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Feb 17, 2012, 21:34 		A surprisingly well-done character sketch of Santorum, using his 2006 IT TAKES A FAMILY as its starting point.

I agree with the writer that the book is denser that you would expect. But the conclusions Santorum draws in today's pluralistic democratic society is exactly what he shouldn't be doing based upon much of the history he draws in the book.

He would have been doing a much better job in simply laying out the base for strong conservative values instead of using them to attack others. The sections on defending stay-at-home moms, for example, is some of the strongest conservative writing I've come across in the last ten years.
 
157sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 15:25 		Santorum questions Obama's Christian values

Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator known for his social conservative policies, said that Obama's agenda is "not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology."

Newsflash Mr Santorum...the US Govt is not suupposed to be based, on Biblical Theology. Such a premise, would undermine the 1st Amendments "Freedom of Religion".

WHEN, will the GOP figure out, that we as a nation do not WANT, a theocracy?
 
158DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 16:04 		When God (or Jesus, or the Pedobear, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) tells them so, obviously.
 
159Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 16:55 		Santorum rips Obama for having an agenda that is not Biblically-based.

 
160boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 17:02 		With a few more comments like that one Santorum will be lucky if he could win one state in national election.
 
161boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 17:06 		I read through the article to see if there was something defensible in there but when given a chance to clarify what he said, I was expecting he would have expanded on the idea that Obama was forcing secularism over your religious rights, while I may or may not agree with that I could understand his point, but instead he goes off talking about how basically man should destroy the earth, because that his god told him to do or something...UGH.
 
162Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Feb 20, 2012, 17:36 		Crazy stuff. I think he really is trying to shock people into voting for him because Obama doesn't believe the same things he (Santorum) does.

Unfortunately, when it comes down to it, Santorum's view is a minority one even among Catholics.

That said, Santorum is leading in a host of Southern states, and leads Michigan as well. His might just be the protest vote by the Tea Party who never hid their Christianist roots very well, and never was comfortable with Romney.
 
163Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Feb 21, 2012, 01:35 		Santorum: Liberals are the anti-science ones, for not fully exploiting the Earth.

 
164Razor
      ID: 551031157
      Tue, Feb 21, 2012, 09:50 		What we are witnessing is the Tea Party destroying the Republican Party. We'll either get a weakened Romney or an unelectable Santorum. Thanks, Tea Party!
 
165Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Tue, Feb 21, 2012, 10:20 		What we are witnessing is that the party of the big money donors and the Tea Party are two entirely different parties.
 
166Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Feb 21, 2012, 11:10 		We've demonstrated that the Tea Party is just as big government. Only that their spending priorities are different.
 
167Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, Feb 21, 2012, 11:17 		The Tea Party can't even be defined at the moment.
 
168boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Feb 21, 2012, 13:18 		I am not the biggest fan of Obama but right now but I think I am rooting for Santorum just so he get the nomination and then embarrass himself and the republicans to the point that in 2016 they will have some real candidates.

 
169Great One
      ID: 340592712
      Tue, Feb 21, 2012, 13:18 		I'm with you boikin. I think it would be hilarious.
 
170sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Tue, Feb 21, 2012, 13:24 		Tea Party targetting Rep powerhouses for replacement

Conservative activists are also trying to topple Senators Orrin Hatch and Richard Lugar, the two most senior Republicans in the Senate. In Indiana, State Treasurer Richard Mourdock is looking to take down Lugar. Over in Utah, recently resigned State Senator Dan Liljenquist is trying to topple Hatch.

These battles pit Republican against Republican, which have the potential to hurt the party's chances of taking back the Senate.

Have they learned NOTHING, from the fiasco that has been the freshman Rep House members?
 
171biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Tue, Feb 21, 2012, 13:59 		Today in immature headline jokes.

Santorum Blasts Obama during Cumming Rally.

You'd think with his google problem, he'd avoid a place called Cumming.
 
172Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Tue, Feb 21, 2012, 16:22 		Fits right in with Tree's take on every conservative woman who doesn't look like Helen Thomas.

Run away bili, it's contagious.
 
173biliruben
      ID: 34820210
      Tue, Feb 21, 2012, 16:41 		Heh. Come on. Even you have to admit that's an amazing headline and at least a little funny, given the defacto definition of his name. ;)
 
174Tree
      ID: 191411422
      Tue, Feb 21, 2012, 16:50 		Fits right in with Tree's take on every conservative woman who doesn't look like Helen Thomas.

Um... That was your take... you're the one that continually posts about how attractive some of these women are, in truly lecherous fashion.
 
175boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Feb 21, 2012, 17:21 		re 171: I thought you had made the title up (to unreal), glad you didn't...
 
176Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Tue, Feb 21, 2012, 17:27 		#174

No, that would be you bringing up your own masterbatory projection every time you see anything better looking that Helen Thomas.
 
177Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Feb 23, 2012, 11:46 		The culture war never stopped

This piece is spot-on.
 
178Frick
      ID: 201292315
      Thu, Feb 23, 2012, 16:29 		Salon.com

This article was enough to make me go from "probably not" to "no freaking way" on Santorum.

I did see one quote that reminded me of a certain poster here though.

In the Catholic church where I was raised, pride, arrogance and an overinflated sense of oneself were considered sins. But in Rick Santorum’s world they are virtues, and they make up the foundation from which he proclaims how other people should live their lives.
 
179Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Feb 24, 2012, 17:04 		When Pat Buchanan is questioning you, you've probably lost the Extreme Right
 
180sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sun, Feb 26, 2012, 13:20 		Rick Santorum CLEARLY, does not understand the US Constitution

I dont believe in seperation of church and state

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," Santorum, a devout Catholic, said in an interview from Michigan on ABC's "This Week."

"The First Amendment means the free exercise of religion and that means bringing people and their faith into the public square."

Yes Rick, the PEOPLE are free to do that. The GOVERNMENT however, is not.
 
181sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sun, Feb 26, 2012, 13:30 		Feingold says "Santorum is possibly THE least tolerant person I EVER worked with"

In fact, former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold told Buzzfeed this week that the presidential hopeful was the "least tolerant" individual he has "ever dealt with."


Ever.


That's saying something from a man who worked as a lawyer for private law firms for six years, was a member of the Wisconsin state senate for ten years, and was a member of the U. S. Senate for 18 years. Among all the disgruntled clients and lawsuit participants, all the reporters and the pundits, all the political rivals and opponents he met, worked with, and engaged in various associations over the years, Feingold sees former senator Santorum as the most intolerant he's had to deal with.


Ever.


"Rick Santorum is possibly the least tolerant person I've ever dealt with," Feingold said. "His attitude towards people who are different from himself is shocking."

 
182Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sun, Feb 26, 2012, 15:32 		#180: Funny that he went to Texas to speak on the anniversary of Kennedy's speech. Kennedy re-assured people that he believed in the separation of church and state absolutely, as a way to help people get over their anti-Catholic bias.

Santorum has done the opposite.

As we found here in PA: The more you know Rick Santorum, the more you don't like him representing you.
 
183Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Sun, Feb 26, 2012, 17:55
 
184Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Sun, Feb 26, 2012, 19:58 		There still is plenty of anti-catholic bias to talk about in Texas. Kathleen Sebelius has a boatload to discuss for starters.
 
185Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sun, Feb 26, 2012, 20:42 		One of the greatest minds of the 13th century.
 
186Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 02:45 		There still is plenty of anti-catholic bias to talk about in Texas. Kathleen Sebelius has a boatload to discuss for starters.

care to elaborate?
 
187Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 15:29 		I'm guessing it relates to this, from Wikipedia.

Sebelius is "staunchly pro-choice."[63] Her office stated that abortions declined 8.5% during her tenure as governor.[64] According to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment statistics, the number of induced abortions in Kansas declined by 1,568, or 12.6%, from 2001 to 2007, the year of the most recently available statistics.[65] Her administration attributes the decline to health care reforms that Sebelius initiated, including "adoption incentives, extended health services for pregnant women..., sex education and... a variety of support services for families."[66] Nationally, the number of abortions declined approximately 7.6% from 2000 to 2005, the year of the most recently available and reliable U.S. statistics.[67]
Sebelius, a pro-choice rights advocate, has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood and they have conducted fundraising activity on her behalf.[68] Sebelius is a member of the Catholic Church; in early March 2009, Archbishop Raymond F. Burke, prefect for the Apostolic Signatura, the Holy See's highest court, declared that Sebelius should not approach the altar for Communion in the United States, and he noted that, "after pastoral admonition, she obstinately persists in serious sin"[69] In 2003, 2005, 2006, and again in 2008, Sebelius vetoed legislation that would have limited abortions in Kansas.

Despite her pro-choice view, in December 2011, Sebelius overruled the FDA's recommendation on making the "morning after pill" (Plan B One-Step) available over the counter for females under the age of 17.[78] President Obama said that the decision was Sebelius's, not his.
 
188Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 15:42 		Oh there is so much more. She single-handedly prolonged the long dark nightmare that was George Tiller when the people of Kansas had solved him over and over at the ballot box.
 
189biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 16:21 		George Tiller when the people of Kansas had solved him...

That's a pretty disgusting euphemism for shooting someone through the eye, you twisted man.
 
190Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 16:49 		That's because he personally was responsible for abortions, all of them, in the state of Kansas.
 
191Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 16:56 		1) I thot the people of Kansas were supposed to solve things thru the ballot box, but noooo. That wasn't good enuff for Sebelius.

2) All the late term ones. For Kansas and from far and wide as well.
 
192Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 17:32 		So your God demanded his death.

We get it. You are no longer moved by Jesus' words about loving your enemies and only invoke the story of him overturning the money changers' tables.

As for the ballot box, the people of Kansas are not able to overturn SCOTUS decisions themselves. That's not how it works.

Arizona is trying, however.
 
193Tree
      ID: 321162716
      Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 17:33 		approves of felon worship.
approves of corpse desecration.
approves of the desecration of religious texts.

and now, apparently, makes light of murder in a church when it "solves" an opinion that might be different.

that's a heckuva god you got there Baldwin. and it just further confirms to me what i've been saying about you for years.
 
194Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 17:42 		You Molech worshippers have perception problems.



 
195sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 17:45 		Abortion, is not murder. To assault, let alone kill, someone who prerforms LEGAL medical procedures, and to do so SOLELY because you disagree with the law of the land; *IS* murder/attempted murder.

God Boldwin, does not condone murder. Your interpretation here, is just flat ass wrong. As I said not long ago, the day will come when you stand before Him and he will shake His head in consternation. Wondering how one who tried so hard, could fail so utterly.
 
196sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 17:55 		I honestly do not fathom why ANY female would endorse Rick Santorum. Does anyone really have a clue on that? Strikes me, that Santorum would gleefully return women to a status not very different from that which the Taliban would enforce.
 
197Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 18:50 		You Molech worshippers have perception problems.

We know that, in your attempts to be pro-life, you cheer on a murder.
 
198Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 19:55 		It wasn't a murder since he didn't share Boldwin's beliefs, thus he was no longer human. I think that explains a lot of Boldwin's posts.


I don't think abortion is moral, but I don't believe it should be illegal. I do think that late-term abortions (where the fetus could be born and survive) should be illegal, as it does IMO constitute ending a life. Prior to that, it is as Sarge said, a medical procedure.

Sadly, I don't think that will ever come to pass as the two extremes are so absolute in their views, no compromise is possible.
 
199sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Mon, Feb 27, 2012, 20:18 		I could and would agree with severe limits being placed on late term abortions. ie, life of the mother being pretty much it. (rape or oncest as omnfrequent as they may be, would be known well before late term status) Once the fetus is viable outside of the womb...3rd trimester for the most part, I'd think elective abortion (for lack of a better term) would have already been chosen if such was to BE the choice. Make it to month 7, and I think the woman pretty much HAS chosen, ...to have the baby.
 
220Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 23:34 		He keeps going through Super Tuesday, minimum. The Tea Party has no one else to put their money toward.
 
221sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Tue, Feb 28, 2012, 23:38 		Oh he will continue to run, no doubt. But his days as a serious contender? They are behind him.
 
222Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Feb 29, 2012, 14:39 		The only reason Santorum is currently a factor is that Obama raised the anti-catholic spector and Santorum conveniently was a catholic.

A Tea Party alternative will certainly be in the race till the convention. Both will carry enuff delegates to make it interesting and useful to them to stay in. If they weren't stalking each other one of them would trounce Romney.

The most interesting things to me which aren't getting covered are that Santorum is orthagonal to the Tea Party's favored strategy. The TP wanted to avoid social and focus on economic conservative. The TP hasn't won the culture war yet [nor will they in the long run] but they can win easily against european socialism. Collect what you can.

But instead Santorum is a somewhat compromised figure on small government and hard on the social issues.

The other point is that Romney isn't filling stadiums any easier than McCain did. Expect the same ole scene of a token VP candidate outdrawing and dragging the unpopular RINO butt around just like Sarah had to carry McCain as far as possible.
 
223sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Wed, Feb 29, 2012, 14:45 		B? Sarah derailed McCain. She did NOT "carry him". When McCain named her as his VP candidate, and the nation got to hear her....McCain lost the independents and moderates. With that loss, he lost any shot at the election as well.
 
224Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Wed, Feb 29, 2012, 16:51 		I agree with 223. After hearing Palin speak, I was afraid to vote for McCain because I didn't what her to be next in-line for the Presidency.

I think that was true for a large number of moderates and possibly some Republicans.
 
225Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Feb 29, 2012, 17:03 		McCain would have been drawing twelve people to rallies by November if not for Palin. He would have been embarrassed to come of stage.

And this is why you've been giving republicans such 'good' advice.

 
226sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Wed, Feb 29, 2012, 17:09 		Hell B, *I* was in McCains camp right up until I heard Sarah Palin speak. THAT, is when he lost my vote and Obama got it.
 
227Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Feb 29, 2012, 17:14 		If that doesn't explain why republicans shouldn't have nominated him...You have a republican leaning every leap year or so.
 
228sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Wed, Feb 29, 2012, 17:22 		Reagan-Democrats like myself, are why he got elected. Your insistance on alienating those who were central to electing your hero, is mind boggling to say the least.
 
229sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Wed, Feb 29, 2012, 17:27 		and by-the-by Boldwin, when was the last time you were honest enough, to have given a Democrat his/her just due?
 
230DWetzel
      ID: 49962710
      Wed, Feb 29, 2012, 17:28 		"You have a republican leaning every leap year or so. "

You'd think that would be a pretty good year for him to have it as far as you're concerned, what with that coinciding with every presidential election.
 
231DWetzel
      ID: 49962710
      Wed, Feb 29, 2012, 17:33 		(With apologies to the 1800 and 1900 elections, and to our future Venutian conquerers who might read this in the year 2100.)
 
232Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Wed, Feb 29, 2012, 18:46 		when was the last time you were honest enough, to have given a Democrat his/her just due? - Sarge#229

#1607 4 hours ago.
 
233sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Wed, Feb 29, 2012, 18:52 		gotta give ya that one. Thought about that as I posted it.

OK, outside of that 'gimme'...when?
 
234Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 01:12 		It would help if your friends weren't out to destroy everything I like about this country.
 
235sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 01:42 		hmmm "my friends". Not sure at all, there is anyone currently in DC, who would call me a friend, or they a friend of mine.

As for "destrioying what YOU love about this country". Couple problems there. What you love, is approximately the same as Stalin would love. To dictate every living moment, for every living person. Frankly, I will gleefully destroy that for you. Secondly; what YOU love, is irrelevant. You are 1 person, with a fringe philosophy; adhered to by a minority although a vocal and militant one.
 
236Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 09:27 		Lol! Me...militant...lol! It's like you are deliberately in a contest to see if you can state everything backwards.

I don't want the government telling you anything other than to avoid committing violence.

In every other way I want you left alone.
 
237DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Thu, Mar 01, 2012, 11:13 		http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InaRIYFPMiY
 
238Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Mar 05, 2012, 13:42 		I'd expected Santorum to make a strong stand in Ohio (purple state that leans red, strong evangelical component, etc). But it turns out some ground game shortcomings might lose him a number of delegates.

This is the problem with a campaign which is stretched thin and has to ratchet its game up under some very fierce time constraints.
 
239sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 00:17 		with 88% of Mississippi GOP voters misinformed as to Obama's religion; I would not take much comfort as Sanorum, in winning that race. Alabama, pretty much the same. I see it as kind of tough, to be proud of winning in 2 states where the voters apparently dont know jack sh*t.
 
240Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 00:25 		Still counts, though. All Romney is doing is collecting just enough votes to take the nomination. Because these are all proportional states, Romney continues to build his delegate count (which was twice Santorum's at the beginning of the day).

Everything depends upon Gingrich, at this point, and his ego is the X factor. The longer he stays in, the more it hurts Santorum. Soon Gingrich will realize that the best way to hurt Romney will to drop out. But I don't think he wants his drop out to have the benefit of helping a moralizer like Santorum. Tough call.
 
241Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 01:01 		Been poking around at the NYT delegate count page.

Romney needs 688 more delegates to win the nomination. Assuming he gets nearly all the Utah delegates (a safe assumption), you have to wonder about where he might get the remaining 650 delegates.

But the near-term schedule is kind to him. He's got some good states coming up for him, such as IL (where he is leading, by a lot), PR, MD, and a whole host of states on 4/24: CT, DE, NY, RI.

Santorum should win Wisconsin, PA and maybe LA. but Romney will leech delegates from those states as well.

By the end of next month, then, we're probably looking at another 250-300 delegates for Romney. And his grind-it-out style will continue to get him the delegates in every state he competes. If he gets 100 delegates from CA it will be about over.

Santorum hopes for a broken convention, where he will try to pick off unaffiliated and super delegates, and will put forth the case that Romney is unelectable and that no one else can articulate the social issues that he can (both of these are true, I believe). But a Santorum nomination out of a broken convention will be divisive to the general election and the GOP in particular. It will be very, very nasty.
 
242Razor
      ID: 551031157
      Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 12:13 		The longer Santorum is in it, general election included, the less likely the GOP is to win the Presidency. If he just dropped out, Romney's candidacy would be much stronger. And borrowing some unforeseen scandal, Romney will be the nominee.

Santorum's selfishness here is reflective of the Tea Party in Congress; they were both willing to damage the larger cause to try to get what they want, even when it is very, very unlikely.
 
243sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 12:20 		Santorum, Gingrich, hell even Paul. Not a one of them has a snowballs chance. Paul oddly enough, is the best candidate the GOP has atm, for the national election. The other 3, all fall flat vs Obama in every poll I have seen. Paul gets beat, but by a much smaller margin and yet, the GOP wouldnt nominate someone like Ron Paul unless their only other option was an avowed and vocal atheist.

Romney gets the nod fom the GOP and then falls in the national. My only 'fear' is, once a candidate is named, will the GOP suddenly "fall into line", and blindly back the guy they just spent 6 months doing everything they could, to run away from?
 
244Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 12:58 		The difference is that the race will get very, very nasty the longer Santorum gets a stage. IMO, at this point I would prefer a quick Romney win so we can concentrate on the general election.

And, of course, to give the crazies time to "simma down now."
 
245Razor
      ID: 551031157
      Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 15:17 		The GOP will almost certainly fall into line once Romney gets the nomination, but they seem bent on waiting several more months to do that. This is hurting Romney's campaign ultimately. Not because he is being damaged by attacks, but because he is having to take positions farther to the right thanks to Santorum which will hurt him with moderates in the general election.
 
246sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Wed, Mar 14, 2012, 15:22 		Rick Santorum Relieved No One Has Asked Him About Interracial Marriage Yet
 (disc: Onion piece)
 
247Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Mar 15, 2012, 21:17 		Larry Sabato seems to agree with my analysis.

 
248Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Mar 16, 2012, 12:49 		Wonder if this will cost him the Limbaugh vote.
 
249Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Mar 16, 2012, 14:48
 
250Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Sat, Mar 17, 2012, 22:13 		Nice PD, that sums up Santorum very succicently.
 
251Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 11:47 		I don't suppose Iran's openly boasted plans to nuke Israel and the Great Satan no matter what harm comes to Iran as a consequence, has anything to do with it.
 
252Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 12:39 		Only as much as Israel's efforts at subverting American elections in order to get you to pay for their bombings.
 
253Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 14:08 		When did liberals become the 'Jews run everything' party?
 
254sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 14:10 		re 251...of course it does. That fully explains the right hand most frame. The left hand frame, is self evident from his statements.

Really B, there is nothing there to find offensive. It is, straight up truth.
 
255Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 14:47 		When did liberals become the 'Jews run everything' party?

For you? When you stopped believing there is a difference between being "anti-Israeli aggression" and "anti Semitic."
 
256Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 17:24 		I'm agnostic on this issue [I can't come up with an innocent explanation the dancing Isrealis] but I'll note that liberals were awful happy when Bill Buckley ran the 'Jews run everything' John Birchers out of respectable society only to now become their dopelganger yourselves.
 
257Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 00:24 		Romney easily wins PR primary vote. Santorum didn't help himself by seemingly making up a fake federal law that PR had to designate English as their official language in order to become a state.
 
258Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 00:37 		McCain: Knock off contraception talk!

While a more "Establishment Republican" would be hard to find, I think he's exactly right the the GOP is opening up a huge perception problem with women on this issue.

 
259sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 01:37 		McCain named Palin, to try and close the gender gap which was going to cost him the election. This cycle, again, the GOP seems hell bent on diminishing the role of women. Seems they just cant/wont learn. That "all or nothing" mentality, is going to cost them the House, give the Dems a Senate super majority, and give the Dems the WH.

I for one, dont like the idea of any party, running carte blanche over the whole show. Seems to me, it would do away with checks and balances entirely. I do wish, the GOP could/would field a decent, centric candidate with an appeal that extends beyond their radical fringes. And that candidate would NOT, go by the name of Rick Santorum. That much is for damn sure.
 
260Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 01:55 		Fortunately the culture of the Democratic Party seems to allow much more than the GOP for understanding that a successful national political party must necessarily allow for opposing points of view to coexist and weild influence from within the camp. There is no liberal Dem equivalent of the current GOP's worship and demand for homogenous conservative purity throughout the ranks, complete with a dreaded exclusionary epithet that most of them must climb over one another to avoid.

For that reason, they have shown that even with a supermajority, the Democratic Party has a hard time effecting it's national agenda, even with significant compromises.
 
261sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 02:06 		True enough MITH and a valid observation. It was rather well demonstrated 2008-2010 if I but think back a little bit.
 
262walk
      ID: 4123787
      Tue, Mar 20, 2012, 09:07 		NYT: Santorum's Writings

Interesting stuff. I bit scary to me (well, very scary to me), but a lot of folks seemingly agree based on primary results.
 
263Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Fri, Mar 23, 2012, 10:14 		Santorum - Might as well have Obama than Romney as prez
 
264bibA
      ID: 4057177
      Fri, Mar 23, 2012, 10:59 		As much as I dislike Santorum, I do find a lot of truth in that. Romney and Obama may very well be a lot closer on the political scale than either compared with Santorum.
 
265sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Fri, Mar 23, 2012, 13:05 		I tend to agree bibA. The very reason the GOP is having such a hrad time buying the Romney candidacy, is his history is indicative of a moderate. Not something, the GOP embraces.
 
266Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Mar 23, 2012, 13:38 		That may be true for Romney. It is also reinforced I think, by the Far Right's inability to distinguish between a moderate Republican and "liberals."
 
267sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Fri, Mar 23, 2012, 13:42 		The far right wing, sees themselves as "the nrm" and everything to their left as radical leftwing. THAT, is the very core of their problem.
 
268Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Fri, Mar 23, 2012, 17:00 		The 'problem' is that the left sees the spectrum as progressives/fools who can be dragged slowly down the progressive path/subhumans.

The right sees the spectrum as commies/useful idiots/americans.

Naturally libs are way happier with the know nothing middle.
 
269Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Mar 23, 2012, 17:09 		Naturally libs are way happier with the know nothing middle.

Not at all. You are describing the core of the Tea Party, who believe factual untruths and set their political course as a result.

I do agree with your description of how the Right sees the spectrum, absolutely.
 
270Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Fri, Mar 23, 2012, 18:08 		Well you also agree with the unprincipled middle only benefitting the left as well.

They will eventually sell America down the socialist river. They don't understand what is happening. They'll eventually buy your product when you find the right wrapping. Once in place a socialist program never gets rescinded.

You just love it. The right can't afford to lose ever. They never get the ratchet step back.

If only everyone was a clueless unprincipled slob. Nirvana for the left.
 
271Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Mar 23, 2012, 19:24 		I have no idea what you mean by selling America down the "socialist river." I suspect you don't either, since your definition of "socialist" has nothing to do with actual socialism, its theories, or goals. It is just name calling for you.

Much of what makes America great are those very kinds of things you, no doubt, would find to be socialism. The mandating of Social Security. The Civil Rights Act. The Clean Water Act. Minimum and child labor laws. Progressive taxation.

By your own (latest) definition, the acceptance of even one of these things means we're already down the river. And you've already lost.

 
272sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Fri, Mar 23, 2012, 20:05 		As I said, the problem with the far right, is that they see everything to their left (which is far and away the majority), as being equally extreme, leftist. They fail to acknowledge, that middle ground wherein BOTH sides "give and take", even exists. It's that recently exemplified "all or nothing" mind set, initially I think, demonstrated by GWB and company with their "either you're with us or against us" BS.
 
273Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Fri, Mar 23, 2012, 23:39 		'Let's sit down and compromise your principles.'
 
274sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 02:30 		you, and your narrow extremism, are not the only ones in this country. Compromise, is not a dirty word. It is the oNLY way, a diverse nation, can be unified and stand as such. Or do you honestly expect the REST of the nation, to 'compromise its principles", in order to make you happy?
 
275Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 02:48 		There is no compromise possible with national suicide. You just go thru periods when the suicide party wins and attempts to extinguish America, and periods when America wins, temporarily slows the bleeding and America takes a breather on it's trip to hell in a handbasket.
 
276Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 03:04 		We don't disagree with you on that. Only your belief that we are now undergoing that suicide.
 
277sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 08:34 		It was a Rep admin Boldwin, enjoying a Rep Congress, who set aside regulations and led us to the economic collapse. yet, you insist on blaming the Dems, when it has been a Dem administration which has led us from the bring. Both in the 30s and most recently.

When, will history sink in for you?
 
278Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 09:19 		when the suicide party wins and attempts to extinguish America, and periods when America wins

This is just self-serving rhetoric. Since March 2009, the stock market has doubled, unemployment has dropped, and even the housing market is rebounding. Our currency remains the standard by which all global business is tied, and our relationships with previous superpower antagonists, Russia and China, are as stable as any period in history.

If there's a suicidal element occuring in this country, it's the doomsayers whose agenda is spreading fear and loathing, and while this element can be found on both the right and the left, it's the right which currently uses this tactic as the basis for their political philosophy.
 
279Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 10:22 		unemployment has dropped, and even the housing market is rebounding

The smartest democrat pollsters are warning Obama's team not to sell recovery because Americans aren't feeling or living recovery yet in their own lives.

Since March 2009, the stock market has doubled

I thot you didn't love it when the rich got richer and the average guy slid sideways or sunk.

Our currency remains the standard by which all global business is tied

Russia which has no national debt because it reduced it's already minimal socialist benefits at the 'end of the cold war' is arguing for and will possibly receive a role as the world's new reserve currency. A role that a hopelessly overspent, bankrupt and still overspending America sadly no longer deserves.

and our relationships with previous superpower antagonists, Russia and China, are as stable as any period in history.

When your enemy is imploding, just sit back and enjoy the show. These are the golden years when they reap the benefits of 70 years of successful stalinist propaganda wars against our culture.

Congrats all you stalinist meme-bots mindlessly repeating the memes of a long dead despot.
 
280Tree
      ID: 37226713
      Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 11:27 		Lol
 
281sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 12:02 		Russia which has no national debt because it reduced it's already minimal socialist benefits...

Ummmm...wrong. Russia went BK because of military spending throughout the cold war. NOT because of "socialist" programs. It was the cold, hard, military-industrial complex (yu know, the favorite line item of republicans), which led to their bankruptcy. No national debt? Only because the Soviet Union as such, no longer exists.
 
282Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 12:12 		While the US dollar has had inflation, I don't think it can compete with the ruble.

By calculating the product of all six redenominations, it is seen that a pre-1921 ruble is equal to 2×10−16 current rubles.

As far as the economy improving, while you probably don't want to admit it, the economy is improving. I question how much is attribituable back to the President, but that applies to all Presiden't, not just Obama.
 
283Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 13:26 		The US "won" the Cold War by outspending the USSR. Russia had no "national debt" because they did two things:

-reduced their military size drastically (what the Right here would never do)

-pushed onto the former states much of the debt.

Meanwhile, they had a huge problem with inflation which arise as a result of their central bank pumping money into the nation's banks to avert a crisis.

Really, you don't want to hope for a Russian-style economy. Russia is a petro-power with nukes.
 
284Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 13:26 		I meant to say "no long-term national debt." They took on a lot of short term debt incurred as a result of their military expansion.
 
285Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 15:46 		Congrats all you stalinist meme-bots mindlessly repeating the memes of a long dead despot.

Thanks for making it crystal clear that you and your buddies are the ones who really hate America.

 
286Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 18:53 		Really, you don't want to hope for a Russian-style economy. - PD

No, of course I don't. It's the left that craves a Russian style economy. Only Russia's style of marxism couldn't even afford sterile needles in their hospitals and they went bankrupt.

America's marxists want to give away benes the old school marxists never even dreamed of and certainly never could have afforded anymore than we can.
 
287Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 18:56 		And when America's marxists aren't craving soviet style marxism they are craving european style marxism.

Something that went so broke that our FED had to bail them out a 14 trillion dollar secret loan we'll never be paid back.

American marxists can really pickem.
 
288sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 19:27 		It's the left that craves a Russian style economy.

As long as you hold steadfastly to a falsehood like that, you will never begin to understand what a "leftist" is.
 
289Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 19:41 		Oh, that's right. According to you, Ronald Reagan was the one who craved a Russian style economy.
 
290sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 19:58 		strawman. I never, and neither has anyone else here, said that. We said, he was far more a moderate, than a hardliner. Same with Nixon, truth be told. Look at their histories, and thats the only conclusion you can HONESTLY draw.
 
291Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 20:09 		Nixon was a CFR globalist tool. Reagan, not so much.
 
292sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 22:21 		Do you deny, that the GOP has slid dramatically further right today, than it was 20 years ago?
 
293Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 06:23 		Nope, the candidates who win the presidential nominations have slid left.

The Ronald Reagan base has stayed the same, tho more and more desperate to achieve results as the nation gets spent deeper and deeper into bankruptcy both left and right and they can't even get their own party to listen to them and vote right.
 
294Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 09:15 		Funny most of the people I hear talking like that do so in support of Ron Paul. And curiously he's one Republican who doesn't join in the hero worship and openly includes Reagan's contributions to America's spending and budget problems.
 
295Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 09:16 		When was the last time there was a Republican budget hawk in the WH?
 
296sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 11:41 		post 293, in response to 292...is as string a piece of evidence Boldwin, that you are ENTIRELY out of touch with reality. Even the GOP leadership, admits that the party as a whole, as moved WELL to the right. You sir, have no idea, where the middle ground lies. You are so far right, you cant see far enough to your left, to see the far right.
 
297Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 12:34 		Even the GOP leadership, admits that the party as a whole, as moved WELL to the right.

Yeah, they've been saying that down at the Woodrow Wilson country club ever since Goldwater. But country club republicans have never had even a passing familiarity with their conservative base.
 
298sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 18:12 		I believe B, it is the extremist like yourself, that has no idea of the GOP base.
 
299Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 18:51 		I know they would have re-elected Ronald Reagan for life if they could have and they still would.

Thus the libs desperate attempts to twist the memory of Reagan.
 
300Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sun, Mar 25, 2012, 18:59 		Yeah--stupid libs like the ones who actually worked with the guy. How dare they stop the deification!
 
301Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 14:41 		Santorum is getting his ass handed to him here in PA. Word is he might be suspending his campaign (he's got a press conference in Gettysburg this afternoon).
 
302sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 14:46 		PA voters overwhelmingly rejected him the last time he ran in that state. I have never understood, what made him think this would be different.
 
303Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 18:39 		Only one stalking horse left. And that's Paul who isn't quitting.
 
304Mith
      ID: 18451815
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 13:00 		Santorum on the Penn State scandal and the Freeh report:
"I don’t know if you did or not, but I did. And, my concern with the Freeh report, a lot of the conclusions in the Freeh report aren’t matched by the evidence that they presented and so I’ve been talking to a lot of folks at Penn State and they say, ‘you’re just gonna have to wait for the criminal trial of these two guys at Penn State.’ I think there is going to be a whole new line set on what really went on there. So I’m sort of sitting back and waiting for the facts to come out as opposed to at least I’m being told is a version of the facts. … Let’s get the truth. So I think we’re going to see some things come up a little different in the next six months. I just want to make sure we get it right."
 
305Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 14:03 		Since when did presumption of 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law' become even controversial let alone damning?
 
306DWetzel
      ID: 49962710
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 14:12 		At least you remembered the court of law part! (That's a sincere compliment.)

It depends on what he's talking about. There's a fine line between "let the criminal process take its course before we hang these people" and "lol NCAA, we're completely innocent". Needless to say, the NCAA is not a court of law, nor should they be held to those standards. (It would, however, be nice if they held themselves to some more consistent standards, but that's a separate issue.)
 
308Mith
      ID: 18451815
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 14:13 		He didn't say he was presuming innocence.

Where did I say anything remotely close to that this was damning? Damning how?

Since you "asked"... I do think it's an odd position to publicly stake, politically and otherwise. And I wonder how his connections with the school might drive it beyond simple alumnus loyalty.

I've not heard anyone without a personal stake in the matter criticize the Freeh report for failing to match available evidence.
 
309Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 14:20 		I do think it's an odd position to publicly stake

Unless we are so foolish as to think it would be a good idea for our highest profile politicians to start hanging people in the media without benefit if trial...

...that is exactly the position he should be taking.
 
310Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 14:23 		Santorum's inability to stay in touch with the people of Pennsylvania is what cost him his seat in the Senate. His inability to actually shut up on this and, you know, let the process continue is continuing the trend.
 
314Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 14:40 		Between that and two or three big blue fixed cities you might be able to make Pennsylvania forget Obama hates coal.
 
315Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 14:41 		And guns, prayer and clinging.
 
316Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 14:48 		Call him a pedophile... ?


exactly the position he should be taking

Given what Ive seen and read of the case, I'd expect the proper "wait and see" objective position does not include openly accusing the Freeh report of drawing unfounded conclusions.

I havent read the thing so maybe there's something there but it's sure enough of a stretch to me wonder about motives.

Am I supposed to apologize for a specifically non-accusatory ponderance when a politician says something I find odd?
 
317Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 14:53 		Can't we just assume that Santorum, being a senior polititian from Penn, has had plenty of respectable grey haired sages from both camps whispering in his ear 'guilty' and 'innocent' and that he's all, "Enuff already, let's have an actual, you know, trial or something."
 
318Seattle Zen
      ID: 47630913
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 15:04 		"Enuff already, let's have an actual, you know, trial or something."

Both of these school officials could be found not guilty and the sanctions would still be appropriate. Those are two related but not equivalent investigations.
 
319Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 15:05 		It's not an assumption when you know it isn't true. He's clearly taking a side.
 
320Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 15:07 		I am also not sure if these FBI reports are the same sort of 'eyes only' reports that the FBI puts out on every political figure, such as the illegal room full of FBI reports in the Clinton WH, but if they are the same sort of reports, then they contain every last unverified piece of mud and innuendo every slung about a person.

Santorum as a practicing lawyer might quite justifiably be horrified at the idea of hanging someone on that basis.
 
321Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 15:09 		You really should take a look at the report--it'll save you from having to post things like #320.
 
322DWetzel
      ID: 49962710
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 15:18 		"Both of these school officials could be found not guilty and the sanctions would still be appropriate. Those are two related but not equivalent investigations."

Bingo.
 
323Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 15:20 		PD

I don't expect anyone involved to be found to have done their job properly except the early whistle-blowers.

I also don't expect you and MITH to be wondering aloud why Santorum doesn't ream them a new one before it's completely gone thru the courts.
 
324Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 15:25 		Is that your excuse for speculated on the report in such an ignorant way? Really, just 5 minutes looking at it would have answered your questions in 320.

Here's a link (pdf).

Now ask yourself:

-is this an FBI report?
-does this have the appearance, anywhere, of being "eyes only?"
 
325Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 15:37 		It wasn't until six links in to MITH's original link that you could find the report.

Considering many people here think it a point of pride that they never look at my links, you maybe, I don't think you should be so shocked that I missed the sixth link into the piece. I did skim it before posting 323 however.
 
326Mith
      ID: 376222518
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 15:43 		I don't think you should be so shocked that I missed the sixth link into the piece.

This is reasonable. It's also reasonable that I'm not shocked that you are defending Santor's objectivity as he is very clearly taking a particular side on the matter.

 
327Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 18:25 		Well, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know exactly what he is objecting to in there.
 
328Mith
      ID: 40602716
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 18:30 		Neither is he.

And I wonder if he doesn't either.

 
329Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 19:35 		Yes, he is a lawyer.
 
330Mith
      ID: 40602716
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 20:18 		OK. I still wonder tho.
 
331Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 20:26 		That's what I like about you.
 
332Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 20:46 		He's not only a lawyer, but he went back to practice after leaving the Senate. ASAIK he never gave up his license when entering office, which is actually pretty impressive to me (what with CE requirements and all).

This whole thing is all about Santorum protecting the memory of his fellow Republican Joe Paterno.
 
333Mith
      ID: 40602716
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 20:51 		My suspicions lead more toward him doing a solid for the school while donors are dropping like flies.
 
335biliruben
      ID: 28420307
      Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 22:33 		Rick Santorum takes a position at World Net Daily.

Maddow mocks (above). Rightly.

But for Mitt, he would have been the nominee.

Smokes.

 
336biliruben
      ID: 28420307
      Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 22:37 		This is it, actually. The above was weird. Very weird.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 
337Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Tue, Dec 04, 2012, 22:41 		The U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, for those who've forgotten, is a human rights treaty negotiated by the George H.W. Bush administration, which has been ratified by 126 nations, including China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

But most Senate Republicans saw it as a threat to American "sovereignty," even though the treaty wouldn't have required the United States to change its laws.


The GOP's right-wing base, led in part by Rick Santorum, raised hysterical fears about the treaty

link
 
338Perm Dude
      ID: 41661813
      Mon, Aug 12, 2013, 20:27 		From the "This actually explains a lot" category: Rick Santorum seems to believe that "middle class" is the term for a social strata rather than an economic one.