Lord Jim wrote:And yes, Mika Brzezinski is a liberal....
Yeah, but only if you count center-right Democrats like her and her father as "liberals."
(On that score, I'm pretty sure that not every Republican is an insane right-wing crypto-nazi whackjob, no matter how much your presidential candidates try to convince me otherwise.)
Her father has actually become somewhat more liberal then he was back in the days when he had the distinction of being just about the only high ranking official in the Carter Administration who didn't have his head completely up his ass...
Mika pretty much toes the Obama Administration/DNC line...
And generally when she does have criticism for Obama, it comes from the liberal perspective....(he shouldn't have extended tax cuts, he tried too hard to work with Republicans, he should have gone for more with his healthcare program, etc., etc.,)
She also doesn't seem to have ever met a tax increase or a government mandated behavior program she doesn't like...
However, unlike many liberal pundits at least she isn't vicious and strident....
dgs49 wrote:So let me see if I have this straight: Santorum says over and over that his personal views about artificial birth control do not reflect his views on public policy, and in fact he would NOT seek to impose his views on anyone else. He votes in Congress to fund artificial birth control through Medicaid and elsewhere.
And this is your proof that he would seek to abolish public access to birth control pills as President.
If his private views were truly private, he wouldn't have mentioned them. Since he did mention them, we have to assume that they will affect his policy decisions. Otherwise, why mention them?
And he has said he will impose his views when it comes to pornography, so assuming he will extend that to other areas is not a very big leap.
In other news Gingrich is now coming in behind Paul and only seems to be holding on to the vote that hates Santorum a little more than they hate Romney.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Well Santorum pissed another one away after coming out against unemployment.
This is a classic case in point of how Santorum's proclivity for shooting himself in the foot, and the press' readiness (and of course Romney's readiness) to exploit it work hand in hand...(or foot in foot)
If you look at the full context of what Santorum said:
It's clear that what he is trying to do is not say that he "doesn't care about unemployment" in the sense that he doesn't care about the unemployed...
What he's trying to do is draw a contrast between himself and Romney, on the issue of the unemployment rate from a political standpoint...
And make the argument that Romney's electability is tied to the numbers, while he is more electable on larger, more fundamental issues, so in that sense, the unemployment rate per se, "doesn't matter"...
As Rick sees it, he would be the stronger candidate because he doesn't see his electablity tied to the unemployment number the way he sees Romney's being...
One can agree or disagree with that argument, (and I disagree with it; as I've laid out the argument before, I believe that any GOP nominee's fortune this Fall is going to be tied to the trajectory of that number) but that is the argument he was trying to make....
But that ain't the way it came across...
Rick Santorum has managed to do the seemingly impossible....
Despite his working class roots, and the compelling empathetic blue collar economic message he has to tell (and that he has shown he can deliver effectively) he has somehow managed to make himself look less sympathetic to the plight of average working Americans than Mitt Romney....
Santorum would like to see all women barefoot and pregnant back at the ranch; I'd like to think he's failing because that dog won't hunt anymore in this country.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
bigskygal wrote:Has anybody considered that this is the result of a political system so influenced by big money that quality candidates of substance can't compete?
I'm sure the fact that Rmoney outspent Santorum 7:1 in Illinois (21:1 in the Chicago media market alone) had absolutely nothing to do with his managing to convince less than half of GOP voters to vote for him.
Rick Santorum has scored a convincing victory in the Republican presidential primary in Louisiana.
With 100% of precincts counted in the southern US state, the ex-Pennsylvania senator secured 49%, well ahead of the front-runner Mitt Romney, who had 27%.
Mr Santorum is seeking to close the gap on the ex-Massachusetts governor to become the party's nominee to challenge Barack Obama in November's election.
Mr Romney has now won 21 out of 34 contests to Mr Santorum's 11.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich trailed in Lousiana's poll in third place with 16%, ahead of Texan Ron Paul with 6%. Mr Paul has yet to win a poll.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
bigskygal wrote:Has anybody considered that this is the result of a political system so influenced by big money that quality candidates of substance can't compete?
If Romney wins, he will have bought the Presidency with his personal fortune.
Money, or the lack of, might explain why Huntsman dropped out but the bigger factor in the Republican party is that the hard-right social conservative nutcases have completely dominated the selection process. If you don't line up with them on every issue, you have no chance. The 25% of US voters WHO THOUGHT BUSH WAS DOING A GOOD JOB WEN HE LEFT OFFICE* completely control the nomination process in the Republican party. Anyone honest enough or smart enough to say that Bush was a failure need not apply.
The Democrats deserve a better party of opposition than this.
Santorum's victory in Louisiana is meaningless, except for the unfortunate fact that it will encourage him to stay in the race longer.
It's time for both Santorum and Gingrich to pack it in. The rationales for their candidacies have evaporated; neither has the slightest chance of garnering the delegates needed for the nomination, nor do they even have the possibility of denying Romney the delegates he needs to be nominated prior to the convention.
All they can do at this point is string this out till June, providing an irritation and distraction for Romney, put on a show for the press, and delay Romney's ability to get about the business of unifying the party behind him and focusing on Obama. Their continued participation in the process benefits no one but the Democrats.
It's time for the rest of the party leaders to join Jeb Bush and endorse Mitt Romney, and bring all possible pressure to bear on Santorum and Gingrich to end their candidacies. For the good of the party, they should get out. Now.
Or they could be hoping that Romney does an amazing fuck up.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
It is not clear to me why Santorum and Gingrich stay in the race, unless they are somehow financially benefitting from the process. Neither can be delusional enough to think they can win, or even prevent Romney from winning on the first ballot.
Even ego would be a stretch. There can be nothing gratifying about seeing how this has evolved.
Rick has made a nice case for himself and garnered a lot of votes, but he has worked his way out of a VP offer or even a cabinet post.
The only people who have any real interest in his candidacy are the political pundits, who have something to talk about, even if it is mainly nonsense. If he drops out there is nothing to talk about until August.
dgs49 wrote:It is not clear to me why Santorum and Gingrich stay in the race, unless they are somehow financially benefitting from the process. Neither can be delusional enough to think they can win, or even prevent Romney from winning on the first ballot.
FWIW (not much) my absentee ballot this time around looks like being -spit- for Obama (nothing much against Obama but I ain't no Democrat party supporter). This assumes that Romney -doublespit- is the other candidate.
As I've said before, any man who gets his religion so wrong (i.e. a total distortion of Christ) cannot be trusted to make a correct decision about anything else. Rather an atheist, a Hindu, a Moslem than a blasphemer.....
(Ducks head)
Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
