Now Santorum?

[rugcat]

Originally Posted by muravyets

But my take on a lot of US history is that people with very different ideas from each other had a lot of room in our early development to move away from each other and hang only with people we like.

Well. a seminal essay in the study of American history was, of course, Frederick Jackson Turner's The Significance of the Frontier in American History (1893)

Still valid, imo.

[nighttimer]

Originally Posted by Don

ding, ding, ding... we have a winner. More "anybody but Romney" churning from the uninformed voters who picked their candidate in the last 48 hours before the voting.

Why does someone have to be an "uninformed voter" to want "anybody but Romney?"

Have you ever considered they are informed voters who want nothing to do with a spectacularly unprincipled hack who attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in 1994 and as governor in 2002 supported a pro-choice pledge written by Planned Parenthood?

You have it exactly backwards. Any informed voter who wants to support a Republican presidential candidate who says what he means and means what he says, would be better served than to seriously consider supporting Mittens.

Which doesn't mean they are tripping over themselves to support Ron "Honest Rape" Paul.

6) Ron Paul’s caucus strategy is taking on water

As in Nevada, the Texas congressman fell short of expectations in at least one of the two caucus states last night.

Paul had one glimmer of hope in Minnesota, where he ended up in second place but finished behind Gingrich in fourth place in Colorado.

Paul himself reminded his supporters at his election night rally that he’s in it for the delegates, and he looked forward to the Maine caucuses this weekend.

But even he acknowledged earlier Tuesday to radio host Scott Hennen that he needs to win a state at some point. It’s easy to argue that he needs to win more than one, given all the hype and attention around his approach and the fact that his supporters are the closest thing to an organized movement that exists this cycle.

He still has time to show he can do better — but third- and fourth-place finishes were not the expectations for him.

Saying what you mean and meaning what you say doesn't count for much when nobody's buying what you're selling.

Originally Posted by j. Adams

In as far as tact is concerned, on the internet I prefer a big ol' Club to get my point across

If getting your point across, requires boasting about the size of your "big ol' Club" you're probably exaggerating and overcompensating.

Originally Posted by William Haskins

on a separate, and more on-topic, note, the lack of exit polls last night make it difficult to make the case that america is being blasted by a fresh surge of santorum or whether the combination of growing awareness of newt's unelectability (and his absence on the missouri ballot) coupled with santorum's adeptness at turning obama's contraception quagmire into a lightning rod issue for catholics and evangelicals informed the outcome in a significant way.

Yeah, speaking of being "informed," at the risk of ruining a perfectly good talking point, Obama's contraception "quagmire/lighting rod issue" isn't a radical departure from policies that were in place during the Bush Administration.

President Barack Obama's decision to require most employers to cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no cost has created a firestorm of controversy. But the central mandate—that most employers have to cover preventative care for women—has been law for over a decade. This point has been completely lost in the current controversy, as Republican presidential candidates and social conservatives claim that Obama has launched a war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church.


Despite the longstanding precedent, "no one screamed" until now, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law expert at George Washington University.


In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees.



Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.


"It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles," a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. "All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It's a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial."

"The current freakout," Judy Waxman says, is largely occurring because the EEOC policy "isn't as widely known…and it hasn't been uniformly enforced." But it's still unclear whether Obama's Health and Human Services department will enforce the new rule any more harshly than the old one. The administration has already given organizations a year-long grace period to comply. Asked to explain how the agency would make employers do what it wanted, an HHS official told Mother Jones that it would "enforce this the same way we enforce everything else in the law."

I'm sure a lot of the good Catholics and evangelicals that are raising hell are simply uninformed. Or if they're listening to a pandering jackal like Rick Santorum, they're simply being misled.

[William Haskins]

Originally Posted by nighttimer

Yeah, speaking of being "informed," at the risk of ruining a perfectly good talking point, Obama's contraception "quagmire/lighting rod issue" isn't a radical departure from policies that were in place during the Bush Administration. I'm sure a lot of the good Catholics and evangelicals that are raising hell are simply uninformed. Or if they're listening to a pandering jackal like Rick Santorum, they're simply being misled.

well, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good NT rant, it is, in fact a lightning rod in terms of how it's being received and viewed by catholics and evangelicals, and it does (and will) represent a quagmire for the president, neither of which implies agreement with the "every sperm is sacred" crowd on my part.

in fact, i am firmly in the camp of the president in that, if you take federal funds, you should be in compliance with federal law.

so instead of reading lightning rod and quagmire reflexively as an attack on obama, perhaps you should just stick to the fact that it is a real dynamic on the current political landscape and that the votes of the uniformed voter count as much as that of the informed.

relax, you'll have plenty of chances to go into tirades because i really did say something negative about obama, but this ain't it.

still, it was quite satisfying to see "it's the same as bush" rationale.

i didn't realize the bar had been set that low.

supporting evidence of a lightning rod:

The Catholic Church Has Launched A Fight Against Obama That's Unprecedented In American History

But in this case, the government will force the Church's institutions (hospitals, schools, charities) to act in a way Catholics consider sinful: to directly buy insurance for birth control, sterilization, and drugs that act as abortifacients. No, the government isn't forcing employees to use those insured services. But forcing Catholic institutions to pay for those services makes the Church complicit in those acts.

And the response of Catholics to the ruling was immediate and harsh.

Put simply: There is simply no time in American history we can recall where nearly the entire body of American Catholic bishops and priests have united to speak against a sitting president by name, and promised civil disobedience.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-c...#ixzz1ltDjZRU8



supporting evidence of a quagmire:

Obama administration struggles to contain uproar over birth-control rule

The White House struggled Wednesday to contain the growing uproar over its birth-control mandate, with Democrats peeling off one by one in what has become an increasingly divisive election-year controversy.

Pressure to roll back the new contraception policy mounted quickly as the day wore on, driven by divisions among Democrats, mixed messages from President Obama’s advisers and a constant drumbeat from the GOP.

“It’s becoming a thorny problem for the White House and it appears to only be getting worse,” said one Democratic strategist. “The politically astute move would be to modify this thing, and quick.”

Asked if the administration should shift course, a former senior administration official said, “I don’t see how they couldn’t. It’s pretty bad.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...ntrol-mandate=

[nighttimer]

Originally Posted by William Haskins

well, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good NT rant, it is, in fact a lightning rod in terms of how it's being received and viewed by catholics and evangelicals, and it does (and will) represent a quagmire for the president, neither of which implies agreement with the "every sperm is sacred" crowd on my part.

If by "rant" you mean interjecting facts where none were present, I did do that.

You should try it sometime. It might defeat the purpose of employing the colorful metaphors, but it would add credibility to your contention. If you care about that sort of thing, that is.

I fully grasp the degree to which Catholics (whose support Obama needs for reelection) and Evangelicals (who weren't supporting him in the first place) may be upset, but it doesn't alter my belief they are being misled by a cunning con artist like Rick Santorum.

Originally Posted by William Haskins

in fact, i am firmly in the camp of the president in that, if you take federal funds, you should be in compliance with federal law.

How magnanimous of you to say.

Originally Posted by Willam Haskins

so instead of reading lightning rod and quagmire reflexively as an attack on obama, perhaps you should just stick to the fact that it is a real dynamic on the current political landscape and that the votes of the uniformed voter count as much as that of the informed.

Yes they do as it is their right and I wouldn't change a thing because the supposed "informed" voters have made more than a few stunning choices in whom they have elected.

Originally Posted by William Haskins

relax, you'll have plenty of chances to go into tirades because i really did say something negative about obama, but this ain't it.

Are "Quagmire" and "lightning rod" considered compliments now? That must come from the same dictionary where Solyndra is a "scandal."

Originally Posted by William Haskins

still, it was quite satisfying to see "it's the same as bush" rationale.

i didn't realize the bar had been set that low.

Probably because there was no interest on your part to characterize the similar actions by the Bush Administration as a "quagmire" or "lightning rod?"

It isn't a bar set that low. It's a fact you neglected to mention. I fixed that for you, but no "thank you" is necessary.

[William Haskins]

Originally Posted by nighttimer

Are "Quagmire" and "lightning rod" considered compliments now?

of course not. they are conditions. and in this case, verifiable ones.

it's not a slam at obama to say he's stepped into a fray.

and to say such a thing is not tantamount to agreeing that the fray is either warranted or fair.

and emoticons are stupid.

[nighttimer]

Originally Posted by William Haskins

it's not a slam at obama to say he's stepped into a fray.

and to say such a thing is not tantamount to agreeing that the fray is either warranted or fair.

Yes, but you didn't describe this incident as a "fray" then. You are describing it as a "fray" now.

If you had characterized it as a "donnybrook," "ruckus" or "brouhaha" I would have responded to that but you didn't so I didn't.

"Brouhaha" is a good word. It's a funny word. I wish you had used that word. Boy, I go weeks on end and don't come across one good "brouhaha." Wonder why that is?

I also wonder how many times a day Rick Santorum Googles himself?

Originally Posted by William Haskins

and emoticons are stupid.

This emoticon says never capitalizing words ain't too smart either.

[William Haskins]

Originally Posted by nighttimer

Yes, but you didn't describe this incident as a "fray" then. You are describing it as a "fray" now.

If you had characterized it as a "donnybrook," "ruckus" or "brouhaha" I would have responded to that but you didn't so I didn't.

i don't often do this, but i will admit this is a salient point.

[Williebee]

MOD NOTE:
Maintenance Break.

ETA: Break over. Govt as a Business derail now has its own thread, already on its way to a different derail.

[rugcat]

The latest from uncle Rick:

"They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God given rights then what’s left?" Santorum said according to radio station WLS.

"The French Revolution," the presidential continued. "What’s left is a government that gives you rights. What’s left are no unalienable rights. What’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...on-under-obama

But you know, perhaps he has a point. The underclass in France got very tired of the 1% controlling everything, and came up with a novel solution.

Swish. Chop. Thunk.

Hmm...

[Maxinquaye]

And then came Napoleon that got rid of privelege and birthright in government, and introduced Code Napoleon in France and many other countries. Could do worse.

[muravyets]

So wait -- is Santorum suggesting that our only alternatives are either to submit to the rules of his church, or gather up everyone who annoys us and chop their heads off?

Gods, what a dilemma...

[clintl]

He's forgetting the mass exodus to Canada option.

[whistlelock]

I think this points to the essential schism in the GOP with the social conservative and reformist evangelical movements.

There isn't a candidate they can agree on anymore, and it's showing in the primaries.

[Maxinquaye]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...grich-20120130

If you're not a conservative voter with a dog in this fight, watching Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and whoever else is running for the GOP nomination this week try to hold on to front-runner status has been great slapstick, like watching a cruel experiment involving baboons, laughing gas and a forklift. No matter how many times you ring the bell, those poor animals are never going to figure out how to move that pallet of bananas – yet they keep trying, taking the sorry show from one state to the next, over and over, as if something is going to change.

[nighttimer]

I am confused. Is Santorum running for President or Pastor of the United States?

Guys who spend so much time talking about things not in the job description make me wonder what job they really want?

Politicians who pervert religion for individual gain are among the sickest fucks on earth.

[blacbird]

Originally Posted by nighttimer

Politicians who pervert religion for individual gain are among the sickest fucks on earth.

Some time past I figured out that the Commandment "Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain" has nothing to do with swearing. It has to do with the quote above. Which can also be applied to many many many preachers, notably Pat Robertson, John Hagee, James Dobson, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard, Joel Osteen, Jerry Prevo, etc.

Anybody who's been made a millionaire through "preaching the gospel" will have a hell of a lot to answer for in the afterlife, if their stated views of such afterlife prove to be correct.

caw

[nighttimer]

Anybody else notice how fast this thread emptied out once the "run government like a business" derail moved elsewhere?

Just goes to show what a dull subject Rick Santorum running for president really is.

[William Haskins]

santorum is still, and will likely remain, a sideshow.

that said, if there was ever an opportunity to make a run at it, it's now, with newt on the ropes and obama all up in the pope's business...

haven't seen any polls for the upcoming primaries in arizona and michigan but, as of a couple of weeks ago, rick was running a distant third and fourth, respectively...

[clintl]

A case could be made that right now, all four of the Republican candidates are pretty much sideshows. And there's no main attraction.

[William Haskins]

certainly true.

though at this point in 2008, the dem primary fight was far from settled...

[clintl]

Yes, but Clinton and Obama were both serious, credible candidates, and Edwards was the VP nominee from the previous election. Basically, several pretty strong candidates competing. And even on the Republican side, which McCain wrapped up pretty early, Huckabee wasn't a farce. I have feeling that if Huckabee had decided to run again, he could have walked away with the nomination this time around.

[waylander]

Originally Posted by rugcat

The latest from uncle Rick:



http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...on-under-obama

But you know, perhaps he has a point. The underclass in France got very tired of the 1% controlling everything, and came up with a novel solution.

Swish. Chop. Thunk.

Hmm...

In case he hasn't noticed, France is doing pretty OK these days. Lots of my fellow countrymen think it is a good place to live.

[blacbird]

Originally Posted by clintl

I have feeling that if Huckabee had decided to run again, he could have walked away with the nomination this time around.

Yup. I've been thinking this exact thing for some time now.

caw

[AKyber36]

Well, Santorum just mentioned no women on the front lines in combat situations regarding the armed forces:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/463403.../#.TzVlW8hBp5c

Really taking us back, huh?

[Chrissy]

Okay, I'll pipe up. When I read the title on the MSN homepage, I figured it had something to do with women being the mothers of our children (which always pisses me off, because, yanno, men are the fathers of our children) and didn't even bother going there. But anyhoo, this is what he purports:

"When you have men and women together in combat, I think men have emotions when you see a woman in harm’s way,’’ Santorum told TODAY’s Ann Curry Friday. “I think it’s something that’s natural that’s very much in our culture to be protective. That was my concern, and I think that’s a concern with all the military."

So, you men out there, you. Are you more apt to protect a fellow female soldier than a fellow male soldier? (That sounds so dumb.) Okay, how about this: Are you more willing compromise a military mission for a female than a male? (Still sounds a bit odd.)

Okay, how about this: Why are we going to war again?