-TSS- Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 Interesting really that Romney being a mormon is such a problem but we're talking about the republicans, so it shouldn't be a surprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 Interesting really that Romney being a mormon is such a problem Actually, it isn't. Anyways, it looks like Santorum's daughter was admitted to the hospital yesterday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 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. I am not a fan of everything he says either. You are not going to get it 'all' with any one candidate. 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!" It's really ironic to say he is against the establishment, when he is the very defenition of 'establishment'. 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. Agree, he is too practiced, he doed not feel natural at all. The only person I really know little about is Santorum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 Anyways, it looks like Santorum's daughter was admitted to the hospital yesterday. 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Santorum could have a pretty good night tonight. I think he has a reasonable good shot in 2 of the 3 caucuses. A strong showing could relegate Newt to the back of the pack. Although he'll probably carry on because of his dislike for Romney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Santorum could have a pretty good night tonight. I think he has a reasonable good shot in 2 of the 3 caucuses. A strong showing could relegate Newt to the back of the pack. Although he'll probably carry on because of his dislike for Romney. All well and true, but isnt it like betting on the Titanic ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 All well and true, but isnt it like betting on the Titanic ? Possibly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 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 agree with most of what you say about the other three but disagree with your description of santorum. he's just another salesman who has little integrity. unless you can imagine your co-workers or neighbours making millions from lobby groups, then he has you fooled. most of his earnings after he lost his seat came from lobby/special interest groups. he's right up there with newt as the ultimate 'washington insider'. link Shaping legislation to serve his corporate donors' interests helped fill Santorum's campaign coffers as a member of Congress. Selling his access and influence as a former member of Congress, while staying just this side of the law, has paid well for Santorum. The New York Times noted that, like Gingrich, Santorum has become a multimillionaire by peddling his influence to big corporations. Don't let the sweater vests and coal-miner's-grandson routine fool you. Santorum pocketed $6 million in six years, based on his Washington insider status, according to a Bloomberg article oh and Rick Santorum: Top-tier on Most Corrupt Member of Congress list 2 years running link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) While staying just this side of the law? Either it's illegal or it isn't. And comparing him with Newt is a joke, he hasn't been there half as long as Newt. Throwing around phrases like, "ultimate Washington Insider" just don't stick. Edited February 9, 2012 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted February 9, 2012 Report Share Posted February 9, 2012 While staying just this side of the law? Either it's illegal or it isn't. And comparing him with Newt is a joke, he hasn't been there half as long as Newt. Throwing around phrases like, "ultimate Washington Insider" just don't stick. why not? he was Top-tier on Most Corrupt Member of Congress list 2 years running it sticks just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 i agree with most of what you say about the other three but disagree with your description of santorum. he's just another salesman who has little integrity. unless you can imagine your co-workers or neighbours making millions from lobby groups, then he has you fooled. most of his earnings after he lost his seat came from lobby/special interest groups. he's right up there with newt as the ultimate 'washington insider'. To be clear, I was just talking about how he delivers his message in debate and speeches. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 In the other Santorum thread, sharkman asked for more information about why I don't like the guy's politics, and I didn't respond at the time. Since the other thread has turned into Shady's Gay Marriage and Polygamy Chapel, I'll respond here. Rick on personal freedom: One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture. Rick on why the state does belong in your bedroom: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. Interview Santorum on contraception: One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.” It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special. Again, I know most Presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These have profound impact on the health of our society. Transcript of that quote; original source of October interview Rick on support for Planned Parenthood: I voted for funding for Title X, which provides contraception through organizations like Planned Parenthood. Interview on Fox Rick on support for Planned Parenthood: Executive Orders, Rulemaking and other Executive Branch Actions Repeal Clinton-era Title X family planning regulations, and will direct HHS to restore the separation of Title X family planning from abortion practices and restore a ban on referrals for abortion Repeal Obamacare mandate for contraceptive services in healthcare plans Re-direct funds within HHS so it can create a public/private partnership with state &local communities, not-for-profit organizations, and faith-based organizations for the purpose of strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood Veto any bill or budget that funds abortion or funds any organization that performs abortions including Planned Parenthood Santorum campaign Rick on support for Planned Parenthood: I was asked if I believed in it, and I said, ‘No, I’m a Catholic, and I don’t.’ I don’t want the government to fund it through Planned Parenthood, but that’s different than wanting to ban it; the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. Source Rick on whether he'd ban contraception: I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case. I don’t think the government should be involved in that. People are free to make their own decisions. Washington Post intervew (reminder: Rick on whether people are free to make their own decisions: One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture. )Rick on whether state governments have the right to ban contraception: It could have been a law against buying shoestrings; that it was contraception has nothing to do with it. States have the right to pass even dumb laws. Washington Post intervew Rick on whether state governments have the right to ban contraception The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have. That is the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court, they are creating rights, and they should be left up to the people to decide. You shouldn’t create constitutional rights when states do dumb things. Let the people decide if the states are doing dumb things get rid of the legislature and replace them as opposed to creating constitutional laws that have consequences that were before them. ABC interview -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/19/poll-santorum-leads-romney-nationwide-by-eight-points/?hpt=hp_t2 Hes winning! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 The "anyone but Romney" rule applies. But this clearly exposes the conundrum now facing the GOP- Given that Obama is most likely to win, it's really just a matter of how embarrassed they want to be, once this election is over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j44 Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 The "anyone but Romney" rule applies. But this clearly exposes the conundrum now facing the GOP- Given that Obama is most likely to win, it's really just a matter of how embarrassed they want to be, once this election is over. Given that Obama is most likely to win if Santorum is his opponent or regardless of the GOP nominee? Obama looks good now but that can change very quickly if the economy starts to slide. Although it might have to slide a lot for Santorum to win. I think the real conundrum for the GOP (that is the Romney backing establishment) and Romney himself is how he attacks Santorum. A big part of the Romney playbook is hit them hard. When an opponent shows signs of life the Romney camp and his Super PACs throw everything they have at them. I don't think Romney can attack Santorum on social issues because that will turn the base against him (more). I'm skeptical how well the other attacks will stick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Romney was never a particularly strong candidate among Republicans, bowing out early in 208 to John McCain, who was given up for dead by July 2007. This is one deal that Gov. Romney cannot close, and President Obama coasts to victory against any of these stiffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 The problem with American politics right now is there is nobody in the centre running... everyone is either too far left or too far right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 The "anyone but Romney" rule applies. But this clearly exposes the conundrum now facing the GOP- Given that Obama is most likely to win, it's really just a matter of how embarrassed they want to be, once this election is over. Regardless of who the Republican candidate is, it's going to be a 51% - 48% type election, with Obama most likely winning. Aside from some economic collapse or some foreign policy blunder. However, I still hold out hope of a Romney/Christie combo squeaking it out in the end! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Regardless of who the Republican candidate is, it's going to be a 51% - 48% type election, with Obama most likely winning. Aside from some economic collapse or some foreign policy blunder. However, I still hold out hope of a Romney/Christie combo squeaking it out in the end! Christie..the governor who is about to VETO a same sex marriage bill in NJ? heh, that is sure one way to kill a presidency ..two homophobes, this is the year 2012 gentleman not 1982 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Christie..the governor who is about to VETO a same sex marriage bill in NJ? heh, that is sure one way to kill a presidency ..two homophobes, this is the year 2012 gentleman not 1982 I'm not sure how that makes somebody a homophobe. But regardless, how would that kill a presidency? One can be for civil unions, and/or providing all of the same benefits of married couples without changing the definition of marriage. But regardless of that, Christie is on the side of most Americans. So again, how is being on the side of most Americans killing a presidency? Even California, often referred to as the left coast voted against re-defining marriage. Christie is in the mainstream. You just wouldn't know it because the mainstream media is so one sided. They frame the issue of the support of gay marriage as something 90% of the population believes in, when that is actually farthest from the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 I'm not sure how that makes somebody a homophobe. But regardless, how would that kill a presidency? One can be for civil unions, and/or providing all of the same benefits of married couples without changing the definition of marriage. But regardless of that, Christie is on the side of most Americans. So again, how is being on the side of most Americans killing a presidency? Even California, often referred to as the left coast voted against re-defining marriage. Christie is in the mainstream. You just wouldn't know it because the mainstream media is so one sided. They frame the issue of the support of gay marriage as something 90% of the population believes in, when that is actually farthest from the truth. Romney and Christie have both made insulting comments towards homosexuals ...the majority of Americans are actually supportive of gay marriage and in the future those two fools will be seen as being on the wrong side of history I see that you disagree but I've read plenty of polls that favoured Gay Marriage in America and I think issues like this go a long way in determining the candidacy potential of a politician as economics is a lot more difficult of an issue for the average person to understand just my opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j44 Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 However, I still hold out hope of a Romney/Christie combo squeaking it out in the end! Do you think Christie is still interested? He seemed pretty sure he didnt want the top job. I would think Romney would look at Rubio before Christie. It would help fire up the base/Tea Party and make him stronger in Florida. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Romney and Christie have both made insulting comments towards homosexuals I think you might be thinking of Santorum. To my knowledge, Christie and Romney haven't really said anything insulting. the majority of Americans are actually supportive of gay marriage That's not true. Like I said, see California as an example. It's a liberal state, which voted against changing the constitution of the state to adopt gay marriage. New York and Massachusettes are the only states I can think of that are supportive of gay marriage, and Republicans don't win those states anyways, regardless of the issues. Unless of course you're Ronald Reagan. and in the future those two fools will be seen as being on the wrong side of history I tend to agree. But the future has no bearing on the present in politics. I also happen to feel the same about abortion. In the future, pro-abortion advocates will be seen as being on the wrong side of history. A barbaric side. Do you think Christie is still interested? He seemed pretty sure he didnt want the top job. I would think Romney would look at Rubio before Christie. It would help fire up the base/Tea Party and make him stronger in Florida. I think he'd be interested if Romney wins the nomination. But even then, it's probably a 50 - 50 that he actually accepts. I'd love to see Rubio, but I don't think he's interested either. He wants to stay in the senate a little longer, and probably has his own presidential aspirations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) I think you might be thinking of Santorum. To my knowledge, Christie and Romney haven't really said anything insulting. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/11/16/368369/romney-flashback-homosexuality-is-perverse-and-reprehensible/?mobile=nc Speaking last fall to a Mormon Church gathering, Mitt Romney, then on the verge of launching a bid for a US Senate seat, expressed dismay at reports of homosexual behavior in the group and denounced homosexuality as “perverse,” according to several people present at the meeting. Romney’s alleged comments on homosexual practices were part of a 20-minute address he delivered on November 14 to the Cambridge University Ward, which numbers about 250 to 300 single Mormons. “He said he was appalled at the incidence of homosexuals in the congregation,” said Rick Rawlins, a 32-year-old Mormon who had previously served as a counselor to the ward’s bishop. “He went on to say that he found homosexuality both perverse and reprehensible.” Romney denied the veracity of the comments but, as the Globe noted, the account was confirmed by three other attendees Edited February 20, 2012 by olpfan1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 I tend to agree. But the future has no bearing on the present in politics. I also happen to feel the same about abortion. In the future, pro-abortion advocates will be seen as being on the wrong side of history. A barbaric side. It will always be a woman's right here, no old men will get to decide this for them, I disagree with you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.