Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Rick Santorum has suggested that it might be better to stick with Obama than to elect "etch-a-sketch" Mitt Romney. He represents the worst of his generation: totally narcissistic and without any loyalty to anything but himself. It makes me sick that people like this can build up moral credit by claiming to be very religious.

He has since shot himself in the foot with his 'better off with Obama than Mitch' comment. Of course with Mark Levin's lovefest with Rick, anything is possible.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

He has since shot himself in the foot with his 'better off with Obama than Mitch' comment. Of course with Mark Levin's lovefest with Rick, anything is possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5os4NFeKFFs

Judy Collins summed up the Republican candidates quite nicely!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Inspiring video!


http://youtu.be/l11ZLzIck_8

This is just a little bit too cheesy and over the top for me. It would work well at the Democratic convention but I'm not so sure it's going work with the average mainstream American. I think most would probably roll their eyes and think..."Whatever".

FWIW:
http://www.nationalreview.com/critic...e-marie-turner

...Senator Johnson cited a McKinsey & Company study that estimated 30 to 50 percent of employers would drop their employee coverage once the new law is fully implemented, and he said that adding so many more people to taxpayer-subsidized coverage would add hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions, to the federal deficit.Secretary Sebelius could not say how many employers would drop coverage, but used Massachusetts as an example where coverage was not dropped. Senator Johnson quickly dismissed that defense with a specific explanation of how the incentives in the federal law are significantly stronger for employers to drop coverage.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

...And that's where we stand. The conservative position on this and so many other economic issues elevates ideal outcomes (that no conservatives are actually working to achieve) over better outcomes that conservatives hysterically denounce as tyranny.

1) Nothing "hysterical" about, as this country is about to find out, if Obamacare takes effect;

2) "Working to achieve"? You do that by talking to your employer, at least if you work for a small business.

I admit, if you have a union, it's normally one size fits all. I once had trouble explaining that I didn't WANT a half hour lunch; I'd rather just go home early. Eventually, I got what I wanted because I wasn't in the union (that was for anyone who was there for 6 months or more). I quit, saving myself the hassle.

Originally Posted by playwrite

That has to be about the dumbest damn thing I've ever heard come out of Paul's mouth...

Where exactly does he think the states, you or me get our money to begin with?

-Oh my. PW's confusing money and currency again. People earn money by providing goods or services.

Congresscritter Paul's point is that people provide goods and services, and the government takes a percentage of that. It just so happens that it's denominated in dollars.

Or is PW going to go into a spiel about MMT?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Exit polls show 98% of voters in the Republican Illinois primary were white and 17% (sic) were under 40. The Republicans are in big trouble come November.

Yes.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Rick Santorum has suggested that it might be better to stick with Obama than to elect "etch-a-sketch" Mitt Romney. He represents the worst of his generation: totally narcissistic and without any loyalty to anything but himself. It makes me sick that people like this can build up moral credit by claiming to be very religious.

Of course you do realize that if Romney is the nominee that the movement conservatives will blame his loss on the fact that a true belleive was not The Standard Bearer in 2012!
The net result of this will be that the culture war coailition that has come dominate the GOP primary process will sulk for another 4 years and go into the 2016 primary process with still green wounds. Simply put if Romney wins the GOP nomination this year, the possibility of an early 1T takes a big hit. I doubt that the national mood can shift before a bout 2020 anyway, and if the radical right is still running on anger the whole process will take even longer.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Yes.


Of course you do realize that if Romney is the nominee that the movement conservatives will blame his loss on the fact that a true belleive was not The Standard Bearer in 2012!
The net result of this will be that the culture war coailition that has come dominate the GOP primary process will sulk for another 4 years and go into the 2016 primary process with still green wounds. Simply put if Romney wins the GOP nomination this year, the possibility of an early 1T takes a big hit. I doubt that the national mood can shift before a bout 2020 anyway, and if the radical right is still running on anger the whole process will take even longer.

Santorum is clearly playing for 2016. Good luck to him! By then there won't be anything looking like a moderate left in the Republican Party.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Rick Santorum has suggested that it might be better to stick with Obama than to elect "etch-a-sketch" Mitt Romney. He represents the worst of his generation: totally narcissistic and without any loyalty to anything but himself. It makes me sick that people like this can build up moral credit by claiming to be very religious.

Howe and Strauss attributed the cornerstone virtues of Boomers as decisiveness, vision, and culture. Cardinal vices: arrogance, selfishness, and ruthlessness. He is willing to let America crash and burn under President Obama (a consummate gamble) so that he can be first in line with solutions.

If one accepts anything that any right-wing Republican says, then President Obama is an unmitigated disaster sure to bring military disaster (from his alleged weakness as a leader) and economic collapse (from his alleged adoption of 'socialist' measures). The last thing that any Republican would do is to run from the concept of "Anyone but Obama" because four more years of 'the worst President in American history' could doom the survival of America, free enterprise, and Western Christian Civilization already in mortal danger.

Sure Rick Santorum is religious. But so are the Ayatollahs who misrule Iran. So are most of the denizens of Death Row.

Boomers are far from through as a political force in America -- but it will be up to Generation X and Millennial adults to choose which sorts of Boomers can be in the highest leadership. Boom political leadership is being culled a little every year, and Rick Santorum is a prime example of that leadership that should have called it quits in 2007.

I want to apologize from the stupidly angry posts I posted eariler, I was venting my anger and frustration caused by the contraception controversy and wasn't thinking with my head.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...

-Oh my. PW's confusing money and currency again. People earn money by providing goods or services.

Congresscritter Paul's point is that people provide goods and services, and the government takes a percentage of that. It just so happens that it's denominated in dollars.

Or is PW going to go into a spiel about MMT?

Now you're being as silly as that nitwit Ron Paul. Currency is a form of money - with most money in the form of keystrokes on computers, currency is the minor form of money but it is still money.

Goods and services are what is different from money (including currency), and you are right that the government takes a percentage of it - there's no government that doesn't. What's really cool about that is the people selling the govt goods and services, then have jobs and income - for example, you for most of your life so far.

What's wrong with people like Paul and the Austrian School folks is they have to make up a lot of weird, and wrong, definitions to support they're own internal logic. Outside of their magic pony land, they're just clowns.

Originally Posted by Lady Vagina

Democratic party propaganda.

Actually the piece was probably composed in about 1971, though the video is recent. It was posted on you tube by the musician herself 38 years later, and the video was produced independently by Emmanuel Antolin according to the credits. No connection to the Democratic Party.

It's too bad we can't hear some words by our president and automatically think "political propaganda." Flaws in policy and all, he still has some good things to say on occasion!

A video to another one of her songs, Mill Valley, was produced by none other than Francis Ford Coppola back in 1970. I bought the record back then, and it's on my top rock list. This song about America was from the album that came out soon afteward, and a "grade" higher.

Oh, and we certainly have zero chance to "start making America better" if a Republican were elected. Not to mention the Tea Party congress. With Democrats, at least there's a chance, IF the people stay active.

But..... I thought I had already made that point clearly. So.......

This is just a little bit too cheesy and over the top for me. It would work well at the Democratic convention but I'm not so sure it's going work with the average mainstream American. I think most would probably roll their eyes and think..."Whatever".

I just thought it was so warm and fuzzy and such a nice song...

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Rick Santorum has suggested that it might be better to stick with Obama than to elect "etch-a-sketch" Mitt Romney. He represents the worst of his generation: totally narcissistic and without any loyalty to anything but himself. It makes me sick that people like this can build up moral credit by claiming to be very religious.

It seems he and all the GOPPER candidates (except maybe Silent Ron Paul) have foot-in-mouth disease. I wonder if that is a boomer trait too. I certainly have it!

I wouldn't assume that there will be no moderate Republicans by 2016. For one thing, it looks increasingly like the party will get another drubbing this year, which will likely result in internal upheavals and a realignment. For another, the "conservative" movement consists of an aging and disappearing demographic, which will be four years more aged and gone in 2016.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Santorum is clearly playing for 2016. Good luck to him! By then there won't be anything looking like a moderate left in the Republican Party.

And he's very likely to get it. Not only do Republicans have a history of nominating the guy who comes in second the time before, but also there is the fact that, assuming Romney loses to Obama in November, Santorum will be able to claim that a "true conservative' could have won in 2012.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I wouldn't assume that there will be no moderate Republicans by 2016. For one thing, it looks increasingly like the party will get another drubbing this year, which will likely result in internal upheavals and a realignment. For another, the "conservative" movement consists of an aging and disappearing demographic, which will be four years more aged and gone in 2016.

If the much vaunted Paulist/libertarian youth movement were doing better than single digets in this year's primary we might expect to see a turn in Republican Party dynamics before 2016. But they either aren't turning out or they are a much smaller demographic than many had hoped. As it is there is no real rising rival to the old culture war coalition with their ranks.
Thus, I expect that the Gastly Old Party (TM) will listen to the appeal of movement conservatism One More Time in 2016.
Remember, conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed. Democrats win elections in a center-right America, so the group think of movement conservatism goes, because the Republicans nominate moderates like Dole and McCain. And, when they do get their candidate, as in Bush the younger, they disown him as a closet modertate as soon as a Katrina like event exposes their governing philosophy and resulting leadership style as inherently defective.

Santorum will have the momentum going into 2016 and unless Kaiser is right about a new 1T way being forced upon America before the boomers are ready to age out of power. Santorum will be able to win the nomination of his truncated party--and very likely lose to the Democratic nominee in 2016 by a near landslide margin.
Then as 2020 approaches we will see the beginnings of a post culture war Republican Party trying to adjust to the political landscape of the coming 1T.

Bear in mind the most electable Republican candidates are sitting this one out. We are seeing the loopies, the nut jobs, and the half-baked also-rans. Turnout for the GOP primaries is very, very low. Enthusiasm for this meager lot is low as well, which is perfectly understandable. I suspect there are a great many moderates out there, or rather genuine dictionary-definition conservatives, who might rally around a moderate Republican candidate.

However, it could be that HT is right about 2016 being too soon. In which case, 2020 for sure.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Bear in mind the most electable Republican candidates are sitting this one out. We are seeing the loopies, the nut jobs, and the half-baked also-rans. Turnout for the GOP primaries is very, very low. Enthusiasm for this meager lot is low as well, which is perfectly understandable. I suspect there are a great many moderates out there, or rather genuine dictionary-definition conservatives, who might rally around a moderate Republican candidate.

However, it could be that HT is right about 2016 being too soon. In which case, 2020 for sure.

Also - when it was announced that Santorum had won Louisiana, my reaction was "So that's 'breaking' news?" There is a very strong regional component to his victories.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Also - when it was announced that Santorum had won Louisiana, my reaction was "So that's 'breaking' news?" There is a very strong regional component to his victories.

Yes, and what's fascinating is that it's stronger than the purely religious component. Rickie does better among Evangelicals than among his fellow Catholics, very few of whom take church dogma as seriously as he does. The seismic shock recorded in southern Virginia recently was Tom Jefferson turning over in his grave.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Bear in mind the most electable Republican candidates are sitting this one out. We are seeing the loopies, the nut jobs, and the half-baked also-rans. Turnout for the GOP primaries is very, very low. Enthusiasm for this meager lot is low as well, which is perfectly understandable. I suspect there are a great many moderates out there, or rather genuine dictionary-definition conservatives, who might rally around a moderate Republican candidate.

However, it could be that HT is right about 2016 being too soon. In which case, 2020 for sure.

But who is now electable? GOP moderates like Jeffords, Chafee, and Specter have been run out. Sure, they are probably too old to figure in subsequent elections, but are people like Charlie Crist really welcome? The Hard Right has primaried Bob Bennett and is trying to retire Dick Lugar as it tried to drive out Lisa Murkowski.

Nixon-era Republicans are completely off the scene.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Yes, and what's fascinating is that it's stronger than the purely religious component. Rickie does better among Evangelicals than among his fellow Catholics, very few of whom take church dogma as seriously as he does. The seismic shock recorded in southern Virginia recently was Tom Jefferson turning over in his grave.

Aren't most Catholics democrat anyway? That seems to be case for most of the ones that I know. But then I'm primarily thinking of those from Irish or other European decent. It's probably more split among Latino Catholics depending on each region of the country they are from.

I believe Lugar is retiring.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

If the much vaunted Paulist/libertarian youth movement were doing better than single digets in this year's primary we might expect to see a turn in Republican Party dynamics before 2016. But they either aren't turning out or they are a much smaller demographic than many had hoped. As it is there is no real rising rival to the old culture war coalition with their ranks.
Thus, I expect that the Gastly Old Party (TM) will listen to the appeal of movement conservatism One More Time in 2016.
Remember, conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed. Democrats win elections in a center-right America, so the group think of movement conservatism goes, because the Republicans nominate moderates like Dole and McCain. And, when they do get their candidate, as in Bush the younger, they disown him as a closet modertate as soon as a Katrina like event exposes their governing philosophy and resulting leadership style as inherently defective.

Santorum will have the momentum going into 2016 and unless Kaiser is right about a new 1T way being forced upon America before the boomers are ready to age out of power. Santorum will be able to win the nomination of his truncated party--and very likely lose to the Democratic nominee in 2016 by a near landslide margin.
Then as 2020 approaches we will see the beginnings of a post culture war Republican Party trying to adjust to the political landscape of the coming 1T.

After April of this year, Santorum will be increasingly marginalized, and he will stay on the margins from the convention onwards. He will not be the 2016 nominee, which could be Jeb Bush or Paul Ryan, if the Republicans decide they want to win. They will not nominate a proven loser like Santorum or Gingrich or (likely nominee and general-election loser) Romney. They might decide they like Crist's tough talking style, even if on substance he is too moderate. Crist could beat Hillary Clinton, but not a stronger candidate than her.

It is a good point that Republicans nominate the guy who comes in second last time. I just tend to think Santorum is an inherently weak candidate in an inherently weak field. A field with no incumbent in 2016 will attract better candidates.

Republicans are likely to win in 2016, I'm thinking now. It is better (IMO) if they win then, than in 2020; because 2020 will set the direction for the next 10 years at least. There is near certainty that the 2020s will be more progressive than this decade, and it is certain there will be increasing reform and action as the decade proceeds; either no more gridlock, or no more United States of America.

Update: latest PA poll has Santorum only up by 2 points. If he loses his home state, he's probably toast, even though the May primaries are in more favorable areas than the other April ones. If he loses big in April, that could wipe out his momentum for May.

This says it all

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/Honest%20Ron%20Paul.jpg

Originally Posted by katsung47

This says it all

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/Honest Ron Paul.jpg

I would love to see Ron Paul and Obama in a debate. But that's not going to happen. There will be no real debates between Romney and Obama because they will try and out militarize one another.

I was thinking about how these long drawn out primary contests can be helpful or hurtful to the eventual nominee in the general election. I kind of think that primary contest between Hillary and Obama probably helped Obama while the long drawn out republican primary contest is going to end up hurting Romney. (Remember that McCain got the nomination fairly early on, so he didn't get as much airtime as the Democrats did. Therefore his message wasn't put out there for months and months like the Democratic message was.)

One could say this is the same set-up now for the Republicans, but here is the difference. The contest between Hillary and Obama didn't really get all that nasty. There was no debate between the two of them as to which candidate was most liberal. Because, frankly, there really wasn't any real difference between where they stood. They were both saying pretty much exactly the same. The only difference was a slight disagreement on how healthcare should be done, and even that was pretty minor. So they were both preaching the same the message without having to get more and more extreme. Both candidates basically ran an upbeat, positive campaign and it was really more of popularity contest. The only negative ad I recall was the 3:00 in the morning ad. Which appealed more to the Republicans then their base anyway.

This is not what is happening with the Republicans. Their primary has been extremely negative and they are trying to out do one another to prove who is the most conservative candidate and which one is the most extreme. In the process they are turning off the average, middle of the road independent voter. Most people in America don't want extreme candidates no matter which side of aisle they are on. I saw polls on both CNN and Fox news yesterday showing very good numbers for Obama with the independent voters and low approval numbers for the all the Republican candidates with independent voters. It's the independents who decide the elections.

Originally Posted by katsung47

This says it all

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/Honest%20Ron%20Paul.jpg

What's missing on that chart is likely economic outcome. Let me fill it in for you:

Obama - muddle through
GOP candidates other than Paul - another Great Recession
Ron Paul - an economic depression that will make the 1930s look like a summer's day picnic.

Get a clue.