kimmy

If Santorum didn't want to get into a pooh-flinging contest, he shouldn't have flung the first nugget. First, I think it should be pointed out that Dan Savage isn't "the gay community", he's just an outspoken gay guy with a column. I don't know much about him, but I do know that he has not been elected as a representative of "the gay community" or have any official capacity to represent gay people. Referring to the "santorum" thing as if it were something endorsed by "the gay community" is simply false. Dan Savage posted it, and it went viral on the internet. End of story (for everybody except Rick, of course.) It went viral because millions of people on the internet thought it was hilarious, not because some secret cabal of gay men thought they could ruin Rick Santorum. Second, Dan Savage isn't running to be President. Rick is. That you're criticizing Dan Savage for lowering himself to the level of a US Senator who wants to be President says plenty about Santorum. I wouldn't vote for Dan Savage. Would you vote for Rick Santorum? Third, I'm puzzled as to why you feel sorry for Rick at all. He picked this fight. This is the high horse he rode in on. He's quite proud of his bigotry, and he knows that a lot of people who support him feel the same way. So why would you feel bad for him, when he's clearly quite pleased to be known as an enemy of gay people? I would think he would wear his santorum as a badge of honor. Finally... I have to point out: Stockwell Day never demanded that Rick Mercer stop calling him Doris... Sarah Palin never demanded that Tina Fey stop impersonating her on TV... George Bush Sr never blew up on Dana Carvey... I could go on, but I think you get the point. And yet... here's Rick Santorum, going to Google trying to make them remove Santorum from santorum. I would think that a guy who wants to be president could be the bigger man... but clearly Rick can't. -k

And appropriately so. There is no telling how many soldiers and Japanese civilians might have been killed had the war continued, but it's entirely reasonable to think that it would have come at a cost to Japan and its people that would have made Hiroshima and Nagasaki pale in comparison. Of course. He wonders why people are contemplating military action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability, yet we accept that the warlike Americans have nuclear weapons, without question. The answer, I think is that the United States has a 70 year track record proving that they are careful stewards of their nuclear weapons; whereas the only conclusion that can be drawn from Iran's track record is that they're a bunch of idiots. -k

It's not that Erickson was hostile toward the idea of someone receiving government grants for something of dubious value. It's that Erickson conducted herself like a grade A imbecile. -k

If a tree fell in the forest and nobody ways there to hear it... would anybody give a crap? I haven't checked, but I expect that their ratings are comparable to the TV test pattern channel. My experience with SunTV begins and ends with that clip of Krista Erickson making an epic fool of herself. It was like watching an SNL skit parodying Fox News. -k

That's up to the Romanian government. It depends on their environmental policies and how much weight they give to the concerns of the protestors. Here in B.C. there is a mining project called "New Prosperity" which would be a massive gold and copper mine. The proposal required that Fish Lake be essentially destroyed. The company said that there was no other economically feasible way of getting the gold and copper out, and said that if they didn't get their way, then they would walk away and all the jobs they wanted to create would be lost. The BC government gave in. The federal government said no. The company fumed and cried that the government was destroying jobs and blah blah blah and took their ball and went home. Then they came back with a new proposal... amazingly they had discovered a way of mining the area without destroying Fish Lake. "Oh, well, changing market conditions make the alternative plan possible now." Governments shouldn't just cave in on environmental protection. -k

If your logic is correct, then something suspicious is going on every time a policeman lets a motorist off with a warning. -k

They must have had to look awfully hard to find an old white man in Washington. Seriously, they could have put on a blindfold, thrown a rock, and hit an old white man who would have been a better choice than Biden. Why did they pick Biden? Maybe because of his anti-drug history. The only thing he's done in his political career is fight against drugs. Maybe they wanted a strong anti-drug guy on the ticket to address worry that despite having used pot once upon a time, Obama wasn't going to be soft on drugs. -k

His 3 year old daughter has a genetic defect called Trisomy 18. From what I am reading about it, children with this condition often die before their first week of life, and most die before their first birthday. She has already beaten the odds by living as long as she has, but her life will always be at risk and it must weigh on Rick (and the rest of the family) constantly. -k

Whether Newt is talking about his social issues platform or not, it doesn't change the stuff he's already said in this campaign and done in the past. Aside from saying he can only trust religious people, as mentioned earlier in this thread, he's taken other positions to suck up to "values-voters". He's signed pledges from groups like Family Leader to fight gays and reproductive rights to try to get the religious-right on board his campaign. And he has proposed to make judges uphold Christian values by calling "activist" judges before congress and abolishing circuits and judgeships of judges that make decisions he disagrees with. He and Callista run a company that makes books and movies about the importance of Christian values in America. So while the debate for the moment is focused on economic issues, Gingrich is what he is. -k

Newt is a bit mistaken about the geography of the pipeline-- it won't end up at Vancouver-- but his point is a good one. It's about America's energy security. -k

...specifically, lots of pie? -k

If the divorces and affairs didn't kill Newt's credentials as a "family values" candidate, this week's open marriage bombshell ought to do the trick. He's had more wives than both Mormon candidates combined... now we get word that he wanted to have two at once. Next time Newt tells people that he stands for the sanctity of marriage, people will have to keep in mind that it's coming from a guy who defines marriage as "a husband, a wife, and a mistress." What a sack of garbage. -k

Finally the joke has a punchline. Somewhere in Texas, a village gets their idiot back. The biggest joke to hit American politics since Christine O'Donnell got sent packing; a guy who achieved the impossible by making Sarah Palin look scholarly; a guy whose most lasting contribution to the political lexicon of our times is the phrase "uh... sorry. oops." So long, loser. Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Herman Cain all said that God told them to run for president, and all three of them suffered crushing, humiliating failure. To be fair, none of them said that God told them they'd win. Perhaps God had some ulterior motive in telling these chumps to run for office, like perhaps telling morons to stop using his name in vain. -k

I watched much of tonight's debate, and the tax return portion was definitely a weak moment for Mitt. I don't think it was Stephane Dion bad, but it sure didn't help him any, and might cost him what could have been an opportunity to bury Newt once and for all. They'll have his tax returns out in public well before the election. -k

Michele Bachmann was considered top-tier the day she won the Iowa straw-poll. Rick Perry entered the race the very next day and she was not top tier at any time afterward. Finishing with 5% in the Iowa caucus which is as close as she can get to home turf was the end of her road. Like Ron Paul, Rick Santorum has never been considered top tier in this race, and yet he remains and has proven much stronger than supposed top tier candidates Bachmann, Perry, and Cain. I will say this much for Santorum: as much as I find some of his views (particularly in regard to the right to privacy) and his statements (his comments about gay people) deplorable... of the remaining candidates, he is the one I find most likeable strictly from a personality standpoint. I sometimes find Ron Paul very likeable too: he sometimes comes across as a genuine, caring, self-deprecating grandfatherly figure and when he is in that mode he is quite lovable. On the other hand he sometimes comes across as a bit of a fanatic and a guy whose motivation is planted in academic concepts rather than the real world, and when he gets into that mode it is a little off-putting. Newt Gingrich I just find obnoxious and arrogant. He's clearly a very smart guy, and nobody knows it better than him. He seems compelled to take every opportunity to show off his knowledge and his preparedness, and to me it usually just comes off as a guy saying "hey everybody, look at me, I'm a big fat know-it-all!" Romney leaves me cold. He's polished, he's slick... everything he says seems pre-meditated to come across as a crowd-pleaser. And while a lot of people probably do find that appealing, I have the opposite reaction... I don't find it genuine or sincere. We've all met people who when they talk we know they're saying stuff they think we'll like rather than stuff they actually feel, and to me Romney comes across that way. Of the four remaining candidates, he is the one who most comes across as a politician, and that's not really intended as a compliment. Rick Santorum, on the other hand, I find just the opposite. I'm apparently one of the few women in Canada who finds Stephen Harper a likeable guy, but the reason I do is that in some ways he reminds me a lot of my dad. Rick Santorum is in the same vein: he reminds me of a regular guy. He has an authenticity and normalcy that the others lack. Of the four of them, Santorum is the only guy I could imagine as a co-worker or a neighbor. I could never vote for the guy, but of course I'm not their target voter anyway, and wouldn't be even if I were an American. -k

Oh, bullshit. If you had read it, you wouldn't have responded with this ridiculous non-sequitur: More bullshit. The poll is very specific: There's no ambiguity at all. And no mention of Limbaugh either. I have no idea where that even came from. Rush Limbaugh didn't start this idea that Divine Intervention is helping Tebow win. He certainly didn't convince 43% of poll respondents of it. Well, I don't think I'll be hearing much about Tebow for a few months. -k {Jesus, why have you forsaken Timmy?! WHY???}

Ron Paul, of course. But Ron Paul's support doesn't fit in the same category as the rest. The conservative wing of the party isn't going to switch to Ron Paul to defeat Romney. The moderate wing of the party isn't going to switch to Ron Paul to defeat Gingrich or whatever. The Ron Paul supporters aren't going to abandon Ron Paul and jump on some other bandwagon. The Ron Paul support is the Ron Paul support and it exists outside of games of "anybody but Romney" or "we need to pick whoever has the best shot against Obama". It is what it is. It won't be enough to defeat Romney, but it won't go away either. -k

If not for "the God angle", none of us would be talking about Tebow at all. Tebow is the most popular athlete in America right now (or at least he was last week...) and it's not because he's good. He's popular because a lot of religious-minded folks have decided he's their hero. Trying to talk about Tebow without the religious angle is like trying to talk about Joan of Arc without the religious angle. Some in this thread vigorously deny that any such thing is occurring. I'm curious as to the motivation of the question. Are you suggesting that there could be otherworldly factors involved-- "Tebow sucks yet Broncos win, therefore Jesus"? This is the non-sports Tebow thread, but the sports-related reasons for Tebow's success are, I believe: 1) really weak opposition. Up until last week, Tebow hadn't beaten a single team with a winning record all season. His previous 7 wins had been over teams with a combined record of 48-64 and none better than 8-8. The one time they did beat a winning team was last week, and the Steelers were pretty banged up. 2) a lot of help. Matt Prater's exceptionally long field-goal range got them 2 of their 3 overtime wins. Offensive line that helps Tebow and McGahee run the ball well. Denarius Thomas, not Tim Tebow, is the guy who killed the Steelers. If it were based on merit rather than celebrity, people would have been talking about Thomas all week, not Tebow. 3) Tebow doesn't actually suck. He's a terrible passer (for the time being) but obviously his running ability helps make up for it. He's not a terrible quarterback and he might be good someday. But right now, he's the new Anna Kournikova: an athlete who generates an immense amount of hype despite very mediocre on-field performance. Kournikova had boobies and Tebow has Jesus, but they're both huge celebrities for reasons that have nothing to do with their athletic performance and a whole lot to do with appealing to people for non-sports reasons. -k

The religious right is doing its part to Spread Santorum, by endorsing Rick Santorum as their choice for Republican nominee. The anybody-but-Mitt wing of the Republican party has floundered around looking for their savior. Rick Perry! No, wait! Herman Cain! Oops! Newt! So I guess it was just Rick's turn. The last polls I saw for South Carolina showed Newt polling strong and Santorum plummeting, so this endorsement is probably not off to a good start. Santorum delivered his speech in New Hampshire standing in front of a black banner with white lettering and an eagle graphic. It made me think of the artwork for the Hunger Games book, which is probably not the best association to make... -k

Read the fricken poll. It doesn't say 43% of Americans watched Tebow play. It says 43% of Americans believe God helps Tebow win games. Are you so stupid that you can't even interpret a simple poll question correctly, or is this just another pathetic dodge? -k

I think I read that Perry outspent all the other candidates in Iowa, and he got whipped. He's spending a fortune in South Carolina too, and he's going to get whipped again. Getting crushed in two heavily evangelical states ought to be enough to prove to him that he has no chance, right? I expect this will be the end of the road for Rick. Huntsman is going to lose badly, but they had to know they had no chance of doing well in South Carolina before they decided to stay in the race, so they must be pinning their hopes on a different primary. -k

This is also a great example of a strawman. I didn't know that anyone was making that kind of connection, other than maybe one or two kooks. ... Ok, there might be 12, or 15. Who cares? Yeah, maybe 12 or 15, or maybe 129 million. (source: the only network Shady trusts.) From another article: Religious people are looking at this and finding personal encouragement in it. "If God is helping Tim Tebow, God will help me too!" Which is ok, I guess... if it makes them feel better. Will they still feel better later? If you believe God is helping Tebow, and evidently 129 million Americans think so, at some point don't you have to ask yourself: "if God is helping Tim Tebow, why isn't God helping all the other people who are praying their hearts out?" The most religious parts of America-- the southeastern states and Texas-- happen to be the same states that have been hit hardest by natural disasters, over and over again. Droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes. Many of these states also have the highest unemployment in America. Rick Perry asked Texans to join him for a day of prayer to pray for an end to the drought. God answered the prayers of millions of Texans by adding wildfires to the drought they were suffering. God cares about helping Tim Tebow win, but he doesn't care about the millions of Christians who were losing their homes and farms in Texas? Does God care more about helping Tim Tebow win than about helping the millions of Christians in America who face economic hardship and natural disasters? 129 million Americans apparently thing the answer is "yes". If they're right, then the only logical conclusion would be that God is an asshole. A complete asshole. But they don't think about that. People who think God helps Tim Tebow win don't think about the millions and millions of faithful Christians just like themselves who God doesn't help. Instead, they think that if God helps Tim Tebow, maybe God will help them too. Despite all evidence to the contrary. -k

My picks last week went terribly. I will go with New England, Baltimore, Green Bay, and New Orleans. -k

I posted in the previous thread that he seems like a very good person. Giving almost all of his $2.5 million signing bonus to charities as soon as he had it seems like pretty convincing evidence of where his heart is at. I don't know whether he gave it to charities that will help provide food and water and medical care for children or whether he gave to his dad's crusade against Catholicism, but either way it shows incredible unselfishness. And this is just a straw-man. -k

The context wasn't "Tebow is telling people what to do." The context was, I said it's stupid for people to associate a greater message with sports outcomes, and Shady said "but nobody is doing that, except maybe one or two kooks." Looking at the nonsense that has followed after Tebow passed for 316 yards, I think it's become clear that Shady has vastly underestimated the number of kooks. -k