Does Santorum have a chance?

[Littlejoe]

I agree, but in sane world Romney should get destroyed in the general election as well since he has no core principles. Nobody actually knows what his true views really are. He plays to the audience, he's flip flopped on every stance he has ever taken. The guy is an obvious blatant liar that anyone who is paying attention can see, and yet he is winning. When you think about it, had Gingrich stayed out of the race Santorum would probably be winning, and if you are correct that he would get destroyed in the general election, what does that say about Romney's chances.

<Sarcasm>

Can you Imagine that a politician having no core principles, hiding their true views, playing to the audience, and flip flopping on issues...

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

What makes Romney any different from any other politician in this race?

LJ

[lilpixieofterror]

<Sarcasm>

Can you Imagine that a politician having no core principles, hiding their true views, playing to the audience, and flip flopping on issues...

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

What makes Romney any different from any other politician in this race?

LJ

JimL is so biasness against Republicans and so busy idolizing Democrats that Obama could stick his tongue out and say, "NANANANANA! Take that Republicans!" even if Romney answered every last one of Obama's campaign points and produces a far better plain of action and JimL would run in here and say that is the sign of the true genius of Obama.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Porn is bad, and in a perfect world, abortificant birth control such as the pill and some hormonal methods would not be a regular occurrence unless it is for another medical reason or would kill the mother. It can cause long term effects in a woman and can kill (a fetus at least). Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with getting rid of things like websites where you can actually see people in the middle of sex in porn videos.

The Pill doesn't kill fetuses and, although it can cause negative long-term effects in some women, is generally safe (and even beneficial for some women). When we're talking about abortifacients, it's important to be specific about which kind we're discussing. There's strong evidence to suggest that Plan B's mechanism of action does not prevent fertilization or implantation of a zygote. So even some "emergency contraception" products are not abortive.

As far as porn goes, it's considered free speech, for better or worse. Even if we would like to get rid of it, we're not going to be able to, nor is a sitting president. The history of pornography cases in the Supreme Court is storied but SCOTUS has consistently protected pornography as free speech, limiting its restrictions mainly to the involvement of minors.

And ok, maybe calling Obama a snob was not the best word, but isn't that sort of dictatorial of the pres. to say that we all need to value education above what is required for our jobs (can't we just make high school actually a learning experience?), that everyone needs to be able to afford something when there are things other than tuition that interfere, or that everyone should have the intellectual capacity to master material for a college degree (discalcula/learning disabilities/etc. anyone)? More and more students these days are coming to college without the background preparation they need to handle college work and are failing out or dropping out. Shouldn't getting them ready be more important than demanding that they go? My state is already one of the worst in education lower than college level (universities are good though).

During the recession (and currently, to a lesser extent), the unemployment rate for college graduates hovered at ~4%, about half of the average unemployment rate and about a third as much as many categories. The US economy is moving quickly into a skilled labor environment; manufacturing in America is actually higher than it's ever been . . . it's just that robots do most of the work that humans used to do. Higher education will be increasingly important for everyone, whether it's college or a technical skill that requires vocational school or a journeyman-ship. And those are the things that Obama was talking about. So it wasn't dictatorial at all.

Concerning learning disabilities, the Obama administration has been more progressive than past administrations working to help folks with learning disabilities find and retain work. The DoJ recently responded to a request for clarification concerning learning disabilities by suggesting that firing someone with a learning disability when the job she was performing doesn't require a high school diploma's skill set might be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. That's a new interpretation and one that will definitely help people with learning disabilities, if enforced.

Milton Friedman could have predicted that bailouts would fail years ago. People's spending is based on anticipated future cash flow, not present cash. You should give people a reason to expect to have more later rather than just hand them a wad of cash to stick in a low-interest saving account or under a mattress. Tax cuts in the future-individual or lower rates for several years for small business to allow predictability and greater profit to re-invest and eventually employ the unemployed, better ways of increasing investments would have worked better. Oh, and rather than just complaining about the rich having their taxes cut, the top 1% of Americans who pay something like 70% of total US federal taxes, we might consider that lower income individuals pay lower tax rates. The benefit that the rich have in terms of taxes comes from better financial education. Why don't we ever talk about how to change this to teach the poorer Americans about money???

The question isn't so much "What percentage of government taxes are paid by the top 1%?" Rather, the question is "What percentage of income is paid by the top 1%?" And that number has steadily decreased. The top earners are earning far more today than they were 20-30 years ago and are paying far less in taxes as a percentage of that income. The problem with the modern GOP's take on taxes is that they ignore or obfuscate the fact of income inequity — the rich are getting progressively richer, while the poor are getting progressively poorer. It's not that poorer Americans don't know about money (some don't, many do); the problem is that poorer Americans are getting by with less and less as the years go on, while richer Americans are accumulating more and more. Apart from any conversation about the morality of such a system, I think it's agreeable that, as the rich accumulate a greater percentage of wealth, they should be expected to pay a greater percentage of government taxes.

Example?

If you don't know what Jaecp's talking about, consider yourself blessed and don't look up any examples.


—Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

JimL is so biasness against Republicans and so busy idolizing Democrats that Obama could stick his tongue out and say, "NANANANANA! Take that Republicans!" even if Romney answered every last one of Obama's campaign points and produces a far better plain of action and JimL would run in here and say that is the sign of the true genius of Obama.

This isn't very fair to Jim, in this circumstance. It's the conservative base that has been most vitriolic of Romney's well-established lack of core principles. It's the conservative base that has been most skeptical of his movement to the right during this campaign.

Romney doesn't have a core and has been one of the worst liars and panderers on the campaign trail. He has to be — his political experience was as a moderate Republican who enacted a healthcare system jarringly similar to Obama's. He vowed during his gubernatorial campaign to "always protect a woman's right to choose." Now he says that the individual mandate is an unconstitutional attack on American's freedoms (if that's true, the so is Massachusetts' law!) and is totally pro-life, even to the point of defunding all of Planned Parenthood.

Not many people seriously believed Romney when he claimed to be "severely conservative." And the reason that the Etch-a-Sketch comment by his adviser went viral is because it so perfectly embodies the Romney pathos. More than any serious presidential candidate in recent memory, Romney is core-less.

—Sam

[Cow Poke]

—Sam

, Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

, Sam

Howdy, there, pard'ner

[lilpixieofterror]

This isn't very fair to Jim, in this circumstance. It's the conservative base that has been most vitriolic of Romney's well-established lack of core principles. It's the conservative base that has been most skeptical of his movement to the right during this campaign.

From what I've observed of JimL, it is spot on accurate.

Romney doesn't have a core and has been one of the worst liars and panderers on the campaign trail. He has to be — his political experience was as a moderate Republican who enacted a healthcare system jarringly similar to Obama's. He vowed during his gubernatorial campaign to "always protect a woman's right to choose." Now he says that the individual mandate is an unconstitutional attack on American's freedoms (if that's true, the so is Massachusetts' law!) and is totally pro-life, even to the point of defunding all of Planned Parenthood.

Out of Obama's campaign promises, how many of them have actually happened and come true? Politicians are some of the biggest liars and frauds around. There is a reason I tend not to trust a word they say.

Not many people seriously believed Romney when he claimed to be "severely conservative." And the reason that the Etch-a-Sketch comment by his adviser went viral is because it so perfectly embodies the Romney pathos. More than any serious presidential candidate in recent memory, Romney is core-less.

They do whatever they can to get elected. Welcome to politics and the reason I do not ever want to get into that field. I could never flip flop around like they do.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Out of Obama's campaign promises, how many of them have actually happened and come true? Politicians are some of the biggest liars and frauds around. There is a reason I tend not to trust a word they say.

According to Politifact, Obama has successfully enacted 34% of his campaign promises, compromised on 11%, broken 12%, has seen 13% stalled and the remaining 29% are "in the works." Obama is the first and last president that Politifact has such data for, so one can take the data on its own merits, rather than as a comparison.

They do whatever they can to get elected. Welcome to politics and the reason I do not ever want to get into that field. I could never flip flop around like they do.

Sure, I agree that's the game and it's a rotten game at that — but I've been paying attention to presidential elections ever since the days of Clinton vs. Bush and Romney is something special. He is remarkably without core.

—Sam

[lilpixieofterror]

According to Politifact, Obama has successfully enacted 34% of his campaign promises, compromised on 11%, broken 12%, has seen 13% stalled and the remaining 29% are "in the works." Obama is the first and last president that Politifact has such data for, so one can take the data on its own merits, rather than as a comparison.

Only 34%? Kind of proves my point for me, doesn't it? Politicians do not seem to stick too much to their principles.

Sure, I agree that's the game and it's a rotten game at that — but I've been paying attention to presidential elections ever since the days of Clinton vs. Bush and Romney is something special. He is remarkably without core.

I have tended to perceive most politicians as having no core and simply projecting an outer persona to hide what they really believe or how they really act. I know history tells us this about the past presidents (not many people knew about the extreme doubts Lincoln had or the depression he had, but he was able to project an outer shell that hid that from the public). To be fair, it is something many public figures do too (actors and singers are quite well known for thus) and even something most of us do to some degree, so it isn't unique to just politicians. It is something that they often do to a larger degree to get the majority of people to 'like you' since the lives of actors, singers, and politicians center on how much you are liked by the general public.

[Cow Poke]

Sure, I agree that's the game and it's a rotten game at that — but I've been paying attention to presidential elections ever since the days of Clinton vs. Bush and Romney is something special. He is remarkably without core.

—Sam

But he's AMAZINGLY supportive of his Mormon Church! Probably gives more to his Church than ANY previous president!!!!

[Seasanctuary]

Santorum wants obscenity laws vigorously enforced? And here I was hoping to vote for someone who would push to have them removed. The problem, as I see it, is the assumption that protected speech and speech allowed in the public square must be the same. This reduces the latitude we could have on private speech, prevents communities from enforcing the public decency standards they would prefer, or both at the same time!

P.S. — Hearty approval of the Emilie Autumn avatar, DG.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Only 34%? Kind of proves my point for me, doesn't it? Politicians do not seem to stick too much to their principles.

You have to look at the whole picture; no politician will be able to keep a majority of their promises, even if they really intend to. I'd look at it this way: Obama has broken 12% of his campaign promises and enacted, either fully or with compromise, 44% of them. He's been stymied on as many promises as he's broken. Given our political system, that's not awful.

I have tended to perceive most politicians as having no core and simply projecting an outer persona to hide what they really believe or how they really act. I know history tells us this about the past presidents (not many people knew about the extreme doubts Lincoln had or the depression he had, but he was able to project an outer shell that hid that from the public). To be fair, it is something many public figures do too (actors and singers are quite well known for thus) and even something most of us do to some degree, so it isn't unique to just politicians. It is something that they often do to a larger degree to get the majority of people to 'like you' since the lives of actors, singers, and politicians center on how much you are liked by the general public.

Most politicians put on a Janus mask, true enough. But that's not the same as lacking core principles or policies. Obama, for example, has been pretty clear on his foreign policy goals and practices, consistent on his desire for a more-encompassing health care system and fairly bold on his desire to raise taxes for wealthy Americans (during his 2008 campaign, he was asked in a room full of hedge fund managers what he planned to do with their taxes — "I'll raise 'em," Obama said). Similarly, Santorum has been steadfast in his social conservatism even when it has clearly been deleterious to his campaign message. Going back in political history, men like George H.W. Bush ran principled campaigns and administrations and, despite walking back on a few key promises ("Read my lips: no new taxes," in Bush's case), led according to definable principles.

Romney doesn't have that. What was consistent about Romney was his economic acumen and message but he's been forced to even violate that and push his economic policy rightward. His economic plan, once unveiled, was heavily criticized by the conservative bloc — such that his campaign removed it from his web site and put up something much less rational and far less pragmatic in order to appeal to conservative voters. When Romney runs in the general, then, which plan will he support — his original plan or the Ryan-proposal inspired one? No one knows . . . because no one knows what Romney fundamentally believes.

—Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

But he's AMAZINGLY supportive of his Mormon Church! Probably gives more to his Church than ANY previous president!!!!

I will agree that Romney is a good, practicing member of his church. It's not enough to give him a core set of values when it comes to presidential politics but I've appreciated his response to people asking about his faith and religion on the campaign trail. Unfortunately for Romney, it looks like the "Mormon problem" has been one of the factors driving many conservatives away from Romney in the primary season. I don't think that it will hurt him in the general when it comes to votes but it's definitely played a role in making him appear weak as a nominee.

—Sam

[Cow Poke]

I will agree that Romney is a good, practicing member of his church. It's not enough to give him a core set of values when it comes to presidential politics but I've appreciated his response to people asking about his faith and religion on the campaign trail. Unfortunately for Romney, it looks like the "Mormon problem" has been one of the factors driving many conservatives away from Romney in the primary season. I don't think that it will hurt him in the general when it comes to votes but it's definitely played a role in making him appear weak as a nominee.

—Sam

I was being facetious.

But, since you responded, I'm a little surprised his "core" doesn't come more from the Church to which he is so committed. I would think that somebody who was that financially supportive of their Church would more closely reflect their Church's political leanings. HOWEVER... I have ASSUMED that Mormons were largely "conservative" until, lately, I've met a few very "liberal" Mormons.

It would also be interesting to see how the "Mormon Problem" truly impacts a potential voter's intention. I find it a little difficult to believe that everybody is completely honest in admitting that his Mormonism would (or would NOT) prevent them from voting for him -- it would be like admitting, "yes, I'm a bigot".

[Ansgar Seraph]

I was being facetious.

Dang it all, I'm horrible at picking up facetiousness!

But, since you responded, I'm a little surprised his "core" doesn't come more from the Church to which he is so committed. I would think that somebody who was that financially supportive of their Church would more closely reflect their Church's political leanings. HOWEVER... I have ASSUMED that Mormons were largely "conservative" until, lately, I've met a few very "liberal" Mormons.

It would also be interesting to see how the "Mormon Problem" truly impacts a potential voter's intention. I find it a little difficult to believe that everybody is completely honest in admitting that his Mormonism would (or would NOT) prevent them from voting for him -- it would be like admitting, "yes, I'm a bigot".

Mormonism is interesting because of its lack of a professional clergy and, by virtue of that, lack of a true systematic theology. In that sense, LDS members seem to operate on a paradigm of orthopraxis rather than orthodoxy . . . thus, Romney's recent statement, "This gentleman wanted to talk about the doctrines of my religion. I’ll talk about the practices of my faith." I think that Romney does reflect a good portion of LDS policy as it relates to politics . . . it's just that said policy is so broad that even a proper reflection doesn't create a distinct political image. Certainly not to the extent that modern Evangelicalism does or modern bishop-approved Catholicism does.

Yeah, I think that the "Mormon problem" will be limited to the primaries, where we have seen Santorum (and to an earlier and lesser extent, Gingrich) take away a disproportionate percentage of votes from people who cited religious factors as being "very important" in their decisions, especially in the South and among lesser-educated voters.

—Sam