Originally Posted by TeddyR

Sweater Vest doesn't have the muscle to win in NH, SC, etc....I'm not sure he'd win a primary in his home state of PA.

Ehh... I seem to remember some sort of controversy over the Senator... ahh yes, this... and then there was this...

In 2005, a controversy developed over an article Santorum wrote in 2002 to a Catholic publication. In it, he said that liberalism and moral relativism in American society, particularly within seminaries, contributed to the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal. He wrote, "...it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm." The comments were widely publicized in June 2005 by the Philadelphia Daily News by columnist John Baer. He told readers, "I'd remind you this is the same Senate leader who recently likened Democrats fighting to save the filibuster to Nazis." In Massachusetts, Santorum's remarks were heavily criticized, and on July 12, 2005, The Boston Globe called on Santorum to explain his statement. The newspaper reported that Robert Traynham, Santorum's spokesman, told him, "It's an open secret that you have Harvard University and MIT that tend to tilt to the left in terms of academic biases. I think that's what the senator was speaking to." A spokesman for Mitt Romney then Governor of Massachusetts, also rebuked the comments. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) delivered a personal rebuke to Santorum on the Senate floor, saying "The people of Boston are to blame for the clergy sexual abuse? That is an irresponsible, insensitive and inexcusable thing to say."

and this...

Santorum has frequently stated that he does not believe a "right to privacy" exists under the Constitution, even within marriage

But this is the controversy I remember him getting the boot for:

Santorum was mired in controversy over his residence in Virginia, where he and his family stay while the Senate was in session. He admitted that he spent only "maybe a month a year, something like that" at his Pennsylvania residence, which critics argued was hypocritical because Santorum himself had denounced, and defeated, Rep. Doug Walgren-PA for living away from his House district. Santorum faced damaging stories that he enrolled five of his children in an online "cyber school" in Pennsylvania, for which the Penn Hills school district was billed $73,000, despite the fact that all the children lived in Virginia.

~Chas'88

If I were a betting man...

I'm still putting my chips down on Romney to get the nomination. I'd love to see Ron Paul get it - but that's a dream that unfortunately won't come to fruition.

And here's the wildcard: Mitt Romney selecting Rand Paul as his running mate for VP. Now THAT scenario would definitely put a kick in the pants of things for certain! It would be a bold and intelligent move, in my opinion. It's not only carrying Romney as being the moderate he is - but it's also clinching the more right righties on target.

Romney WILL beat Obama in the general election.

All this talk about Conservatives not backing a candidate is solely in looking at primaries - once the nomination comes into focus, the right will fall into line.

j.p.

You gotta admit folks, it was pretty remarkable for me to predict, solely on astrological grounds, that Santorum would not only NOT be the first one to drop out, as someone here suggested, but would do well enough to continue on through March. Noone else said this at the time. It's just like when I predicted Kerry would win the Dem nomination in 2004 based on the "stars," at the time Howard Dean was leading and Kerry was in single digits in the polls.

He will fade after March, as all the others have faded (note, brower!.. and anyone else). I said above that Bachmann might be the first to pull out, and that Perry might, depending on what he wants to do. Bachmann finished with only 5% of the Iowa caucus vote, in her original home state that supports social conservatives like her. She is toast. Perry hasn't dropped out yet; he is "assessing" his campaign. "oops"

Obama WILL beat Romney in the Fall, JDFP. And I have the stars on my side, as well as my sympathies in the right place. He will not pick Rand Paul; some pundits speculate he may pick Sen. Rubio of FL or the GOP senator from Ohio. He will thus probably move toward the Tea Party for his veep.

Originally Posted by JDFP

If I were a betting man...

I'm still putting my chips down on Romney to get the nomination. I'd love to see Ron Paul get it - but that's a dream that unfortunately won't come to fruition.

And here's the wildcard: Mitt Romney selecting Rand Paul as his running mate for VP. Now THAT scenario would definitely put a kick in the pants of things for certain! It would be a bold and intelligent move, in my opinion. It's not only carrying Romney as being the moderate he is - but it's also clinching the more right righties on target.

Romney WILL beat Obama in the general election.

All this talk about Conservatives not backing a candidate is solely in looking at primaries - once the nomination comes into focus, the right will fall into line.

j.p.

Mitt Romney did not seal the deal. A tie with Rick Santorum and a near-tie with Ron Paul indicate that the early advantage for Mitt Romney has evaporated. After all that Mitt Romney has invested he has little to show. Romney should have won the Iowa caucuses and didn't.

Mitt Romney will not select Ron Paul. The Military-Industrial Complex will not allow that as an electoral result; it would rather have Barack Obama as President than Ron Paul as Vice-President.

Newt Gingrich has effectively dropped out except to throw support for Rick Santorum. I'm not saying that it is over for Romney, but he must win over much more than the northern and western GOP establishment. Perry and Bachmann are effectively out, and I reasonably expect Rick Santorum to pick up those supporters. Neither Establishment Romney nor Libertarian Paul picks up the votes of supporters of Bachmann, Perry, or Gingrich. Iowa on the whole may be politically more like Michigan than like Arkansas, but Iowa Republicans are more like Republicans of Arkansas than of Michigan.

The people who want a high birth rate, low wages, and military aggression will find themselves behind Rick Santorum, who gave a remarkable victory speech in which he recalled that his grandfather took the worst that America could offer so that his children could get away from fascism which ensured no chance at all. It is distressing to note that a high birth rate, low wages (the only way to 'solve the unemployment problem' while eviscerating the welfare state -- work people harder but pay them much less), and military aggression (the solution for the 'Iranian Question'?) reeks of the policies of the horrible man that his grandfather fled, eventually taking little Aldo Santoro (Rick's father) with him. That is about as harshly as I can describe a politician who isn't utterly insane (like Bachmann), corrupt, or stupid (in the interest of protecting the innocent, names will not be shown)... but if this man becomes President I might regret being an American.

As a heavy-handed enforcer for the Rove-Cheney-Bush Administration within the Senate he bodes ill as a President. I am satisfied that he can attract plenty of money. If he can promise plenty of cheap labor, tight cartels, big military spending, more dependence upon fossil fuels, and a baby boom, then he will attract huge amounts of money from America's corporate barons who think that they own America down to the soul of the newest-born infant. Is money everything in America? If so, then I am glad that I have no children to inherit a political and economic Hell best described as Mussolini's Italy without the antiquities. Rick Santorum, like a typical fascist (or American corporatist), believes that working people have no economic problems that can't be solved without simply working harder and longer under harsher discipline. (Never mind that all the gain goes to the economic pharaohs). Sure, Santorum speaks of freedom -- but it is all for the Master Class.

Now as for Ron Paul -- as a libertarian he is actually to the Left of President Obama on civil liberties, drugs, and military policy. But know his limitations. I think that he maxed out. I suspect that a bigger proportion of Paul supporters will go to President Obama than will those from any other Republican candidate except perhaps Huntsman (who doesn't figure in anything). Even if only ten percent of the shown Paul supporters go to President Obama, that is 2% of the vote.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Bolded did not win nomination

2008 – Mike Huckabee (34%), Mitt Romney (25%), Fred Thompson (13%), John McCain (13%), Ron Paul (10%), Rudy Giuliani (4%), and Duncan Hunter (1%)

2004 – George W. Bush (unopposed)

2000 – George W. Bush (41%), Steve Forbes (31%), Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%), and Orrin Hatch (1%)

1996 – Bob Dole (26%), Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%), and Morry Taylor (1%)

1992 – George H. W. Bush (unopposed)

1988 – Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush (19%), Jack Kemp (11%), and Pete DuPont (7%)

1984 – Ronald Reagan (unopposed)

1980 – George H. W. Bush (32%), Ronald Reagan (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%), and Bob Dole (2%)

1976 – Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan

Source: Wikipedia

Taking out 1976 as a push, and unopposed years, Iowa is only right 40% of the time.

Although it may do better on the Democratic side, having voted for Barack Obama and John Kerry, thus giving them an indispensable boost. Jimmy Carter made Iowa important by winning there in 1976; George McGovern had also won there in 1972. Al Gore won Iowa in 2000 too. Clinton didn't win there in 1992, because Iowa Senator Tom Harkin won as a favorite son. Dukakis did not win Iowa in 1988.

It is the Republican side that is unrepresentative, because there are fewer Republican voters, and they are more conservative even than in southern states.

It is amazing to consider though, had George H.W. Bush not won Iowa in 1980, Reagan probably would not have picked him as veep, and therefore he would never have been president; nor his son. 2% of Iowa voters are thus indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths, and the economic mess we live in today.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Although it may do better on the Democratic side.....

That is why I said this:

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Tristan, Iowa is often a poor indicator for the GOP of who will be the nominee.

Originally Posted by millennialX

Will Santorum be the new flavor of the month?

He already is.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Ehh... I seem to remember some sort of controversy over the Senator...

I think between us we could fill a whole thread with controversy about him. My wife has been asking about him and I can't get very far without grinding my teeth.

Originally Posted by JDFP

If I were a betting man...

I'm still putting my chips down on Romney to get the nomination. I'd love to see Ron Paul get it - but that's a dream that unfortunately won't come to fruition.

And here's the wildcard: Mitt Romney selecting Rand Paul as his running mate for VP. Now THAT scenario would definitely put a kick in the pants of things for certain! It would be a bold and intelligent move, in my opinion. It's not only carrying Romney as being the moderate he is - but it's also clinching the more right righties on target.

Romney WILL beat Obama in the general election.

All this talk about Conservatives not backing a candidate is solely in looking at primaries - once the nomination comes into focus, the right will fall into line.

j.p.

No way Obama loses the general election.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Bachmann finished with only 5% of the Iowa caucus vote, in her original home state that supports social conservatives like her.

Your ignorance is showing, Eric. Iowa leans Left. They legalized same-sex unions not too long ago, IIRC.

The sense I get is that Iowa is "middle America", which would include a sizeable number of social conservatives.

A quote from a friend.

"Interesting factoid from the Iowa caucus -- Mitt Romney, who beat the closest challenger by only 8 votes and only 25% of the total vote, did best among Iowan caucus participants who make more than $100,000 annual salary. (From MSNBC) Romney's net worth has been estimated at $200,000,000."

Originally Posted by Odin

No way Obama loses the general election.

At this point in time I don't see any way he possibly could win the election sans a dramatic change in public opinion (which I don't foresee taking place). Romney will get the nomination and he will select a more right-leaning running mate which will seal the deal with conservatives right-of-center from his mostly moderate standings which will unite the party.

j.p.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Mitt Romney will not select Ron Paul. The Military-Industrial Complex will not allow that as an electoral result; it would rather have Barack Obama as President than Ron Paul as Vice-President.

Small nitpick: I said Rand Paul - not Ron as a choice for a running mate. I think it would be a brilliant choice too. Rubio is another good choice as another poster mentioned here.

j.p.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You gotta admit folks, it was pretty remarkable for me to predict, solely on astrological grounds, that Santorum would not only NOT be the first one to drop out, as someone here suggested, but would do well enough to continue on through March. Noone else said this at the time. It's just like when I predicted Kerry would win the Dem nomination in 2004 based on the "stars," at the time Howard Dean was leading and Kerry was in single digits in the polls.

He will fade after March, as all the others have faded (note, brower!.. and anyone else). I said above that Bachmann might be the first to pull out, and that Perry might, depending on what he wants to do. Bachmann finished with only 5% of the Iowa caucus vote, in her original home state that supports social conservatives like her. She is toast. Perry hasn't dropped out yet; he is "assessing" his campaign. "oops"

Obama WILL beat Romney in the Fall, JDFP. And I have the stars on my side, as well as my sympathies in the right place. He will not pick Rand Paul; some pundits speculate he may pick Sen. Rubio of FL or the GOP senator from Ohio. He will thus probably move toward the Tea Party for his veep.

Eric, this is very fascinating to me. I'm a Scorpio personally (and Metal Monkey at that!) but I never gave much thought to astrological signs/etc. before other than a natural curiosity at something unique. Would you care to share your thoughts on this in greater detail? I'd be interested in hearing more fleshed out.

j.p.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Eric, this is very fascinating to me. I'm a Scorpio personally (and Metal Monkey at that!) but I never gave much thought to astrological signs/etc. before other than a natural curiosity at something unique. Would you care to share your thoughts on this in greater detail? I'd be interested in hearing more fleshed out.

j.p.

I am putting you on ignore for this j.p.

(Kidding)

Originally Posted by TeddyR

I am putting you on ignore for this j.p.

(Kidding)

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I buy any of it - but that doesn't mean you can't find it fascinating and enjoyable though. It's like a good horror film (like the great George A. Romero's earlier films!) - you know it's not real and probably couldn't ever be real - but it doesn't keep you from enjoying it.

j.p.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Bachmann finished with only 5% of the Iowa caucus vote, in her original home state that supports social conservatives like her. .

Eric, although I enjoyed the rest of your post, this indicates a certain ignorance about what you tend to think of the Midwest or Northern Midwest. Minnesota is not a socially conservative state. Bachmann comes from a gerrymandered congressional district.

Fuck Bob Casey, that's all I have to say, this is the third time I've written to him on an issue & gotten the same sort of bullshit response. Luckily I can vote the bastard out this year.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorizes policy and annual expenditures for the Department of Defense. The House of Representatives and the Senate recently passed the final version of the 2012 NDAA with broad bipartisan support. It is currently awaiting the President’s signature before it becomes law.

The Department of Defense is responsible for overseeing the United States Armed Forces and ensuring that our Nation is able to effectively respond to threats. It is critical that Congress provides the Department of Defense with sufficient funding to protect American lives, defend our Nation and support our servicemembers and their families. While our overseas military engagements continue, it is particularly important to provide the resources our servicemembers need to successfully conduct operations and ensure their own safety.

As your United States Senator, I am committed to ensuring the safety and security of all Americans. Since 2001, United States counterterrorism efforts have helped to ensure our national security. Our brave servicemembers and intelligence personnel work tirelessly to protect our nation against the threat of terrorism. However, it is essential that the executive branch operate with transparency and ensure that our counterterrorism efforts do not infringe on the civil liberties of American citizens. We must not sacrifice our fundamental values and ideals in the face of this critical threat.

The custody and detention provisions in the NDAA are the result of thorough consideration and bipartisan agreement. These provisions, including Sections 1021 and 1022, will allow the United States to deal effectively with the threat posed by al Qaeda, a terrorist group that has inflicted devastating harm on our Nation and continues to seek to attack our citizens, our allies, and our interests both here at home and around the world.

Section 1021 of the NDAA does not expand the executive branch’s authority to detain suspected terrorists. This section states explicitly that it is not intended to limit or expand the authority that Congress granted the President in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The definition of a “covered person” in this section is “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” This is the position that has been adopted by the Obama Administration and upheld in U.S. courts since 2001. In addition, it requires the executive branch to brief Congress regularly on the individuals and groups to whom this authority is being applied.

It is important to note that Section 1021 does not create any “new” or “unprecedented” presidential power, nor does it create any “permanent” detention power. The legislation explicitly states that Section 1021 shall not “affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

Section 1022 of the NDAA requires that persons who are members of al Qaeda and have participated in planning or carrying out an attack against the United States or its allies be held in military custody. However, the executive branch can exercise a waiver of this requirement if the President certifies to Congress that holding a particular suspect in civilian custody will better serve U.S. national security interests. In addition, this provision applies only to non-US citizens and non-lawful resident aliens who are al Qaeda operatives and who plan or carry out attacks against the United States. It explicitly does not apply to American citizens and those who reside here lawfully.

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California proposed an amendment which would have limited the requirement of military custody in Section 1022 to suspected terrorists captured abroad. This proposal was rejected in the Senate by a vote of 55 to 45. I voted against this amendment because the waiver provision provides flexibility to the executive branch to determine whether a suspected al Qaeda operative captured on U.S. soil should be transferred to civilian custody.

Senator Mark Udall of Colorado offered an amendment to remove the detention provisions in Section 1021 from the bill altogether. This amendment would have essentially allowed the executive branch to continue to engage in existing detention practices without codification in law. By codifying the detention practices already in use, Congress is exercising its critical responsibility to oversee and create a legal framework for executive branch action. For this reason, I joined a majority of Senators in voting against this amendment.

Senator Feinstein also offered an amendment to explicitly prohibit the indefinite detention of American citizens. I voted in favor of this amendment out of concern that authorizing the government to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens was at odds with fundamental American values. Unfortunately, this amendment was rejected by a vote of 55 to 45. Finally, Senator Feinstein proposed an amendment to clarify that nothing in the bill “shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” I also voted for this measure, which passed the Senate by a vote of 99 to 1 and was included in the final version of the bill.

On December 15, 2011, Senator Feinstein introduced S. 2003, the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011. This legislation would clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States. S. 2003 would also require Congress to make a “clear statement” about the limitations on authority to detain U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. This legislation has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that I will examine this legislation closely.

Nothing in the NDAA authorizes the U.S. military to patrol our streets, detain ordinary Americans in their homes or conduct any law enforcement functions inside the United States. Section 1022 says only that a specific group of persons, narrowly defined as those who are “a part of or substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” should be subject to military custody, unless the executive branch determines that civilian custody is more appropriate in a particular case. The NDAA does not address when or where a person may be captured, and does not authorize the military to exercise unprecedented powers on U.S. soil.

In addition, the NDAA will not disrupt ongoing interrogations, intelligence gathering functions and surveillance activities, and it does not require military commissions in terrorist prosecutions. The administration raised concerns that certain provisions would limit its ability to collect vital information and limit its prosecutorial options. In response, the Senate Armed Services Committee clarified that no such limitations would be placed on the President’s authority.

The NDAA absolutely does not authorize torture of detainees, irrespective of citizenship. Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire proposed S. Amdt. 1068 to the NDAA to authorize certain enhanced interrogation techniques. However, the U.S. Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments,” and we must not tolerate the use of torture under any circumstances. I believe strongly that the United States has a moral obligation to uphold its commitments under the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners. We must, therefore, hold all executive branch officials accountable for alleged violations of these commitments. I am pleased that S. Amdt. 1068 was not included the final version of the NDAA that passed the Senate. Please be assured that I support efforts to prohibit the use of “enhanced interrogation” practices, and that no such practices have been endorsed in this bill.

The NDAA also does not change the fundamental, constitutional right of habeas corpus review. The writ of habeas corpus is a legal doctrine that allows individuals to challenge their detention in a court of law. The U.S. Constitution explicitly provides this right to American citizens, and the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld its applicability, even with respect to suspected terrorists. Any American citizen or lawful permanent resident held in U.S. custody will have the right to habeas corpus review. Similarly, the courts have established that persons detained under the Authorization of the Use of Military Force, including those held at Guantanamo Bay, have the right to such review. Nothing in the NDAA undermines this critical right.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov. I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office, or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

I'll give Casey this much, he didn't even try to do this:

Thank you for contacting my office. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts about current issues. Please be assured that constituent correspondence will receive a reply in the near future.


Sincerely,

Pat Toomey
U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania

I can't wait to vote Toomey out of there.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by annla899

Eric, although I enjoyed the rest of your post, this indicates a certain ignorance about what you tend to think of the Midwest or Northern Midwest. Minnesota is not a socially conservative state. Bachmann comes from a gerrymandered congressional district.

I think the state in question was Iowa, Bachmann's place of birth. Of course, Iowans have elected both Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin to the Senate for decades. Color them Purple.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Fuck Bob Casey, that's all I have to say, ...

~Chas'88

H-m-m-m. You don't have to be so shy about sharing your opinon, you know.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. You don't have to be so shy about sharing your opinon, you know.

Well aren't you being cute.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by annla899

Eric, although I enjoyed the rest of your post, this indicates a certain ignorance about what you tend to think of the Midwest or Northern Midwest. Minnesota is not a socially conservative state. Bachmann comes from a gerrymandered congressional district.

Eric thinks all of us "Fly-Over State" people are backwards morons.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You gotta admit folks, it was pretty remarkable for me to predict, solely on astrological grounds, that Santorum would not only NOT be the first one to drop out, as someone here suggested, but would do well enough to continue on through March. Noone else said this at the time. It's just like when I predicted Kerry would win the Dem nomination in 2004 based on the "stars," at the time Howard Dean was leading and Kerry was in single digits in the polls.

He will fade after March, as all the others have faded (note, brower!.. and anyone else). I said above that Bachmann might be the first to pull out, and that Perry might, depending on what he wants to do. Bachmann finished with only 5% of the Iowa caucus vote, in her original home state that supports social conservatives like her. She is toast. Perry hasn't dropped out yet; he is "assessing" his campaign. "oops"

Obama WILL beat Romney in the Fall, JDFP. And I have the stars on my side, as well as my sympathies in the right place. He will not pick Rand Paul; some pundits speculate he may pick Sen. Rubio of FL or the GOP senator from Ohio. He will thus probably move toward the Tea Party for his veep.

the "stars" mean squat! This Mexican Warlock,.... now he has he inside skinny

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Originally Posted by Weave

the "stars" mean squat! This Mexican Warlock,.... now he has he inside skinny

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

He he, I called it right again!

Reuters:

The rough-and-tumble Republican race for the White House became even more entangled on Wednesday when Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann quit and Texas Governor Rick Perry decided to stay in after all.

The Mexican warlock also uses the stars, but my record may be better than his.