A Santorum Surge?

[Sue U]

Bauer wants you to vote for Santorum to fight "the reckless Obama agenda, the liberal elites and those who seek to undermine the nation's freedoms and moral fabric."

Obama pretty much has the "agenda" of an Eisenhower Republican. I'm guessing the "liberal elite" (what does that even mean?) is supposed to be people like me, but I have not yet been able to figure out how I am supposed to be undermining American freedoms or moral fabric. This is the most offensive kind of douchebaggery that has now become a staple of far too many GOP campaigns: anyone who disagrees with you is some kind of treasonous degenerate bent on the destruction of the nation, not just someone with a different point of view. These people really need to get a grip.

[Beer Sponge]

With rumors of an Iowa upset dribbling out over the last week, the official vote tallies now show Santorum coming out from behind Romney. But votes in eight precincts appear to have been wiped away. Should there be a run-off?

(Okay, okay, I'll stop now. )

...and there goes another keyboard...

[Gob]

February 13, 2012

Santorum Surges to Tie Romney

Race takes another turn as Santorum gains 14 points since winning Feb. 7 GOP contests
by Lydia SaadPRINCETON, NJ -- Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are now statistically tied for the lead in Republican registered voters' preferences for the 2012 GOP nomination -- 32% to 30%, respectively. Newt Gingrich, who led the field as recently as late January, is now third, favored by 16%, while Ron Paul's support has dwindled to 8%, the lowest level yet seen for him in 2012.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152612/Santo ... 20Politics

[dgs49]

Sue, I find many of your postings entertaining, in a masochistic way. You remind me of the New York socialite who was quoted in 1984 as wondering how Ronald Reagan could possibly win the election, since no one she knew was voting for him.

On the "most offensive kind of douchebaggery" front, are you too young to remember how, day after day, Bush43 was excoriated on these pages as a liar, traitor, moron, and fool, merely because the posters disagreed with him politically? Did I just imagine that? Did you find that to be "offensive douchebaggery"? Or fair commentary? I failed to note your outrage at the time.

And are you truly mystified about how someone might find that "liberal elites" are eroding the nation's freedoms and moral fabric? Do you recall the dark distant past when vulgarity and coarse language were prohibited on the airwaves, until liberal forces like the ALCU demanded that (almost) all restrictions be lifted in the name of the First Amendment (which was intended to protect criticism of the Government)? I think you are old enough to remember when abortion was a crime, yet now our only question is whether the taxpayers ought to be forced to pay for it. Do you remember a time before our schools taught pre-pubescent students about "safe" ways of having intercourse and engaging in sodomy? Are you aware that we have undergone a transition from a time when homosexual sodomy was considered a crime in the entire US to a point where we basically celebrate it through recognition of homosexual "marriages"?

And you don't see how anyone could perceive that "Liberals" are causing an erosion of the nation's moral fabric? Jesus.

I realize that (since you are a "progressive" Democrat) you probably do not believe in an objective code of morality, or that the Bible has any validity as a moral "compass," but to state that "I have not yet been able to figure out how [Liberals are] supposed to be undermining American freedoms or moral fabric," is absurd.

"Obama pretty much has the agenda of an Eisenhower Republican"? Trillion dollar deficits? Promiscuous intervention in Middle Eastern affairs? Anti-growth regulatory schemes?

You gotta be shittin' me.

Do you read anything that you post?

[Gob]

On the "most offensive kind of douchebaggery" front, are you too young to remember how, day after day, Bush43 was excoriated on these pages as a liar, traitor, moron, and fool, merely because he was one?

Fixed that for you.

[Grim Reaper]

And you don't see how anyone could perceive that "Liberals" are causing an erosion of the nation's moral fabric? Jesus.

Where "moral fabric" means "my personal opinion on how things should work".

On the "most offensive kind of douchebaggery" front, are you too young to remember how, day after day, Bush43 was excoriated on these pages as a liar, traitor, moron, and fool, merely because the posters disagreed with him politically? Did I just imagine that? Did you find that to be "offensive douchebaggery"? Or fair commentary? I failed to note your outrage at the time.

President George W. Bush lied to the American people over his reasons to invade Iraq. Yet you ignore him when you claim to "hate" phonies.

I realize that (since you are a "progressive" Democrat) you probably do not believe in an objective code of morality, or that the Bible has any validity as a moral "compass," but to state that "I have not yet been able to figure out how [Liberals are] supposed to be undermining American freedoms or moral fabric," is absurd.

The bible is about as useful for morality as a sundial in a hurricane is for telling time.

Hint: It's possible to have a moral code and not use the bible at all.

"Obama pretty much has the agenda of an Eisenhower Republican"? Trillion dollar deficits? Promiscuous intervention in Middle Eastern affairs? Anti-growth regulatory schemes?

President George W. Bush invaded two Middle Eastern countries, plunged us into trillions of dollars in debt and fiddled while the economy burned. You are a blazing hypocrite with absolutely no sense of history.

[Liberty1]

President George W. Bush invaded two Middle Eastern countries, plunged us into trillions of dollars in debt and fiddled while the economy burned. You are a blazing hypocrite with absolutely no sense of history.

So what's your take on BO, whose invaded even more ME countries, gave no reason why, did it without congressionsal approval, piled up trillions in debt that GWB could never dream about, and did everything in his powert to make the economy worse (except for the beneficiaries of his cronie capitalism failures).

[Scooter]

Which countries did Obama "invade" without congressional approval?

Or do words actually mean anything to you?

[Liberty1]

You're right invade was the wrong word. Attack is more accurate.

[Grim Reaper]

Right. Short duration attacks are totally equivalent to long term invasions that resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, many thousands of injuries, and left the countries involved not much better than when we arrived.

And "gave no reason why"? Really? That's something you're going to use? Cute.

And the Republicans are far more guilty of cronyism than the Democrats could ever hope to be.

[Lord Jim]

I saw Santorum on Meet The Press this weekend, and it was by far the best extended interview I've seen him give. He did an excellent job of parrying David Gregory's attempts to drive him into the "social issues" weeds, and kept focused on his economic message...

As I've said before, I think the Democrats will be making a big mistake if they start dancing a victory jig at the prospect of Santorum's nomination and think that would make Obama's re-election a done deal.

[Scooter]

And how many nations were attacked during the Reagan years, and how many were invaded, and how many proxy armies were funded to fight on your behalf, without congressional approval?

Where were all the critics of wars launched without approval then?

[Liberty1]

So becuase some Rep may or may not have done it 25 years ago, you're good with it then.

Funny, who'd a thunk.

[Scooter]

I can recognize an ocean of difference between ONE attack that had the unaninmous approval of the UN Security Council, which had an objective that was both humanitarian and aimed at stabliizing what could have had massive spillover effects in neighbouring countries, versus a pattern of unilateral violations of international law against countries which posed absolutely no threat to the security of the United States.

It's the difference between acting like a policeman and a thug.

[Liberty1]

that had the unaninmous approval of the UN Security Council, which had an objective that was both humanitarian and aimed at stabliizing what could have had massive spillover effects in neighbouring countries,

That one sentence has ironic, hillarious, sad, oblivious, and naive attributes all through it. Congratulations, that's an accomplishment.

[Scooter]

Congratulations on being completely incapable of mounting an intelligent rebuttal, as usual.

[Liberty1]

I can recognize an ocean of difference between ONE attack that had the unaninmous approval of the UN Security Council, which had an objective that was both humanitarian and aimed at stabliizing what could have had massive spillover effects in neighbouring countries, versus a pattern of unilateral violations of international law against countries

OK here ya go. This is a better description of GWB and the invasion of Iraq, than the libyan attacks, except the country with unilateral violations of international law would be..........Iraq.

[Scooter]

I wouldn't call Iraq a unilateral violation of international law, because you found a willing coalition of idiots to go along with you. But invading Granada, funding death squads in El Salvador, arming the Contras, shooting down a passenger jet in Iranian airspace, etc., etc., etc., I would call unilateral violations of international law.

And there was nothing humanitarian about the Iraq invasion, considering the misery it caused and which persists to this day.

[Grim Reaper]

OK here ya go. This is a better description of GWB and the invasion of Iraq, than the libyan attacks, except the country with unilateral violations of international law would be..........Iraq.

Aiding our allies in an attack to aid a revolution against Qaddafi = violation of international law.

Preemptive strike against a country with no possible way of harming us = hunky dory.

[BoSoxGal]

CNN reports today that Romney and Santorum are now tied for the GOP nomination, according to current polling data.