Santorum Leads Romney In Gallup Polling
Feb 20th, 2012 by David Anderson
The latest polling has Rick Santorum as a 10 point front runner nationally. The GOP nomination has had more twists than a licorice stick. The 10% bandwagon folks who like to associate with whomever the winner is likely to be, have fled Governor Romney and he is back to his base 26%. It seems they have gone to Senator Santorum.
Just when we Democrats think that things couldn’t any better….Santorum! I think your next move has to be nominating Palin after a hate filled brokered convention. That would be sweet.
I would like to know where Mr. Santorum gets the statistic that 90% of Down’s Syndrome babies are aborted?
AQC, what I would like to know is why liberals ask questions but are incapable of searching for facts on their own. Is that a reflection of their welfare mentality that someone else should take care of them?
It took me under 60 seconds to find the answer IN THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Note: That same 60 seconds is about the same amount of time it took me to find the National Geographic article from 2005 and MSNBC story confirming that Christine O’Donnell was absolutely correct about scientists experimenting with mice by injecting them with human brain cells.
It would be a great leap forward if liberals could learn how to search for the truth on their own, and no wait to be spoonfed.
It would also be nice if self righteous lawyer conservatives didn’t take one piece of information and make it a global fact. What about all the women who choose not to have the test?
AQC, what are you asking me for? How could a child be aborted if you only found out AFTER birth whether the baby has Down’s Syndrome or not? By the time a chid is born, it’s too late for an abortion. Although, just wait, if liberals get their way an abortion will some day mean a child you don’t want up to 1 years old.
Let’s everyone settle down here on Santorum. Let’s say he wins Michigan, a proportional delegate state, and Romney holds on to Arizona, as seems likely since Santorum is not investing a lot of money he doesn’t have anyway there. Romney will still walk away next Tuesday with the lions share of delegates, even though its going to be Santorum who gets to give a prime time victory speech since polls in Arizona don’t close until 11 PM EST.
In the end, Santorum has too much baggage, has too bad a voting record on fiscal matters and has said too many moon batty things to endure. Add to that, he can’t contest all ten Super Tuesday states the next week, meaning Romney will take at least six of them. Gingrich will win Georgia, Santorum failed to make the ballot in Virginia. That should put Romney on a trajectory to enable him to at least claim victory, perhaps even mathematically by the time the DelPennNewYoConRhod regional primary is held on April 24.
Christine O’Donnell was absolutely correct about scientists experimenting with mice by injecting them with human brain cells.
Good one Moseley! Or it WOULD be a good one, if that’s what Christine said. But what she actually said was this:
I would think you of all people should be able to remember a landmark quote like that from Christine O’Donnell.
Now, it is interesting about Rick Santorum, as the same cast of characters is trying to do to Rick Santorum what they did to Christine O’Donnell, and endless numbers of conservatives before her.
In fact, HBO is coming out with a prepostreous smear on Sarah Palin right now.
But too many of just can’t see the patterns. How dim do we have to be before we see the pattern? We are watching remake after remake of the same movie script. When are conservatives going to wake up and say “You know, this sounds awfully familiar…”
A year ago, almost to the day, Rick Santorum was taking a swipe at Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell, failing to see how the smear machine operates. Now, Santorum is in the cross hairs of the smear machine. They are misrepresenting Santorum just as they have many other conservatives before him.
YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW. Rick Santorum wanted to throw conservatives who come under fire under the bus. SO NOW IT’S HIS TURN. You reap what you sow. Be afraid, be very afraid, because what you do to others just might happen to you. And how will you ask for the help and mercy of God or others, when you did it to others yourself?
But, Alpha, what you quoted is exactly what National Geographic and MSNBC reported. So go argue with them.
Except that — like Santorum — in the heated spli-second exchange debating on national television, Christine didn’t fit in the word “cells” in “human brain cells” into a rapid-fire debate going back and forth.
Apparently, AQC wants to split hairs. The New York Times article is clearly what Rick Santorum was quoting from.
You know that. I know that. All the grown up people know that. But did Rick Santorum simply not say OF THOSE MOTHERS WHO GET PRENATAL TESTS, 90% of them abort Downs syndrome babies. You know what he meant. I know that you know what he meant. So what’s your point? Rick Santorum said it quickly, and left out the part about “IF THE MOTHER GETS A PRENATAL TEST,” 90% of them abort Downs syndrome children. But you knew that’s what he meant.
So, what have we learned? Liberals — and even journalists — don’t know how to research the facts. You are not smart enough to realize that you are the one who is ignorant.
My point was that it took 60 seconds on Google to find the answer to AGQ’s question. So why did AQC ask it? Why didn’t he try to find it out for himself? Is AQC honestly interested in knowing the truth, or in cheap shots designed to HIDE — not discover — the truth?
Similarly, it took me about 60 seconds in 2010 to find the National Geographic article from 2005 that Christine O’Donnell was referring to, and the MSNBC report that goes even further.
So are you looking for the truth? Or are you looking to HIDE the truth behind cheap shots and lies?
If you could have found the 2005 National Geographic article and the MSNBC article that Christine was quoting from — WHY DIDN’T YOU ? Why did you engage in mockery, when the only one you were mocking WAS YOURSELF? When you cannot find in 60 seconds what I found, which Christine was quoting from almost word for word, who is it that should be mocked? Why can’t you find information that I can find in 60 seconds?
I not only found your links, I found where you posted them on hate site freerepublic.com where you have been a member since 2000. None of your links confirm the O’Donnell statement.
Here’s the National Geographic link:
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1214_051214_stem_cell.html
Well, we have the kook fringe in Obama. It’s only natural that the pendulum swings back to the kook fringe of our party. The problem is that our kook fringe will always be portrayed as even kookier, thanks to the overwhelming superiority of the Democrat communications juggernaut.
The 10% bandwagon folks who like to associate with whomever the winner is likely to be, have fled Governor Romney and he is back to his base 26%.
I know the conventional wisdom is that Gingrich and Santorum are splitting a “conservative vote” but it seems to me that it’s more likely that Romney and Gingrich are splitting a vote while the “true believers” go to Santorum.
That would be a crazy election with Santorum and the right wing media on one side and Obama and journ”O”lists on the other. One can only imagine what stories and narratives would be created.
#10 FBH, “The problem is that our kook fringe will always be portrayed as even kookier,”
Can anyone elaborate on what the kook left fringe believes? Admitedly, kookiness is in the eye of the beholder, but does the left kooks have that is comparable to:
Mice with fully functioning human brains.
Obama is a Muslim
The man has only been around 6,000 years
God was responsible for 9/11
Maybe we could have a contest of sorts and see who has the kookiest? Other than something like global warming, I honestly, do not know what the left kooks have on their list and global warming is not in contention, rather the cause is in contention.
The problem is that our kook fringe will always be portrayed as even kookier, thanks to the overwhelming superiority of the Democrat communications juggernaut.
But there’s the right wing media and the emergence of a multiple stream media in the populace itself. There’s probably still some truth to that though, if only due to the Leftist tendencies of manyjourn”o”lists/imbeciles.
Imagine if Santorum had sat in a church where it was suggested that the God of the Jews and Allah is the same. Wouldn’t the manufactured narrative blaring from the headlines be of some sort of “Christian jihad” emerging in dangerous churches and so on? But when Obama’s mentor says that and more, well. It will be interesting to contrast Romney’s treatment with Obama’s if Romney wins the nomination. I doubt that journalists will be anxious to hide the details of Mormon theology, history and so on.
“If the reporter has killed our imagination with his truth, he threatens our life with his lies.” –Karl Kraus
Dave,
How about, “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it”
Can anyone elaborate on what the kook left fringe believes? Admitedly, kookiness is in the eye of the beholder, but does the left kooks have that is comparable to:
Mice with fully functioning human brains.
See generally:
(Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity, and Other Fables of Evolution by David Stove)
Obama is a Muslim
No blood for oil… George Bush manufactured 9/11 to steal oil from Iraqis. (On the other hand, when Obama keeps fighting the same wars then it’s not about oil.)
The man has only been around 6,000 years
The brain events that cause you to feel like you are thinking generally reduce to ignorant and blind mechanisms like natural selection operating on the reproductive organs of ancient ape-like creatures. Kooky enough for you?
God was responsible for 9/11
People driving cars are responsible for apocalyptic events in the future.
Maybe we could have a contest of sorts and see who has the kookiest? Other than something like global warming…
Other than something which the Left is currently using as justification or sense of “righteousness” to change our way of life, liberty and use of energy/pursuit of happiness?
Wow… why would that be excluded? These are the memes of the day. Why would you want to focus on an esoteric issue like the age of mankind but shift away from dealing with things that are relevant here and now?
The cost of saving the earth from imaginary natural disasters in the future: sacrificing your way of life.
The entertainment value of believing it: Priceless
I was at Coast Day in Lewes about twelve or thirteen years ago and Sen. Carper said If we don’t do something about glabal warming now, we will be having Coast Day in Dover in twenty years.
Does anybody believe Lewes will be underwater in seven years?
Sorry, but when you are discussing kooky, you have to include the global warming kooks.
Socialist green-bots spending $130 billion dollars on solar power subsidies in cloudy Germany is downright bat sh-t kooky…don’t ya think?
Oh…and how about DNREC recently setting up a Division-level globalclimatewarmingchange regulatory group. I’ve read their reports, they’re theorizing 3 foot sea level rise. Unreal.
Sen. Carper doesn’t know squat about much of anything. Sea level fluctuations occur at a rate of millimeters per year (Loockerman St. is at elevation 35’…you do the math) . Then again, some sections of the continental east coast are STILL rebounding upward from being depressed by the weight of glaciers 30,000 years ago, while other areas are subsiding due to the nature of the underlying strata. Point being, sea level change happens…and it’s not because some of us drive around in SUV’s.
” sea level change happens…and it’s not because some of us drive around in SUV’s.”
If you’re certain that global warming isn’t taking place, you’re no different from those who are certain that it is. The truth is that we can’t be sure either way. Unwilling to acknowledge that? Then you might just be an ideologue.
So most of the kookiness on the left seems to relate to global warming, what to do about, etc. etc.
Granted there are many kooks on both sides who claim that science is on their side for either belief. Warm is happening. Glaciers are melting. Is that something to be alarmed about? I don’t think we have enough knowledge to say one way or the other.
But really, I was sort of hoping for something a bit more kooky than scientific disagreement. Maybe something like, 9/11 was an inside job or there is a secret organization trying to create a one world government. Something juicy from the left.
Having Coastal Days in Dover is certainly hyperbole, but I am sure it was not intended to be taken literally. I am not looking at idiotic policies or hyperbole and attemting to recast them as kookiness. You all know the difference.
Obama is a Muslim
Notice how none of those issues impact your life to the same extent that kooky beliefs about preventing imaginary catastrophes in the future do, yet this is what you focus on? Let’s just say that it’s more likely that man was created 6,000 years ago than that he is the result of blind, ignorant processes. Mainly because we already know what it is to know. But that aside, how much of your wealth have corrupt politicians begun to transfer to their cronies to prevent imaginary apocalyptic events in the future? If they are so certain then why don’t they have all of their own money in invested in such a way that they’ll make a fortune off of these events in the future? Or are they only certain if they have the political power to force others to pay their cronies or enslave future generations with debt? How much of your children’s wealth has already been done away with, leaving them in debt?
All of this is more relevant to politics… and yet here is the focus:
An interesting question to speculate about but is it worth focusing on? Perhaps the thief on the cross to the left of Jesus was saved but what difference would it make if your goal is promoting life, liberty and happiness here and now?
So most of the kookiness on the left seems to relate to global warming, what to do about, etc. etc.
While the Right may tend to engage in theological speculations (“This natural disaster came about because people are sexual perverts.”) most of the kookiness of the Left (“Natural disasters will result from people eating the wrong foods and driving the wrong cars.”) is immanent… not to mention that it’s also imagined to be imminent. So it is the Left that tends to seek political solutions that impact the lives of others in reality. They’re not going to leave the polis in the same way that Right tends to, they’re more likely to police everyone instead. How does it impact your life if some Rightist sect or another believes that they have knowledge about the end of the world or imaginary problems and they separate themselves from the city/polis? On the other hand, how does it impact your life when Leftists emerge in politics who imagine that everyone in the polis needs to be policed and forced to stand in solidarity to prevent imaginary events and so on?
On another note, I’d argue that you’re generally chasing at phantoms on the Right. We’re a long way from Rightist theocratic ascetics establishing their hypocrisy in America or policing others based on the way that they tend to imagine things. I suspect that even if some did come to power that there’s far too much to check and balance them and far too much of the Left has already been established. In the past you’ve made statements about the dangers of an emerging jihad of sorts on the American Right but the idea is ridiculous. Or do you honestly believe that people on the Right like your imaginary fundamentalists could actually establish enough power to effect your life? If the history of American is any measure then they’re more likely to retreat from the polis or wander the countryside waiting for Jesus to return than to actually effect your life. It’s the Left that tends to establish itself in the city, yet you claim the Right is more dangerous.
In the end, Santorum has too much baggage…
Unlike Romney, who promoted and enacted the healthcare system upon which Omabacare was modeled, who is on record as being pro-choice and who ‘rescued’ the Salt Lake Olympics primarily with federal largesse. And, being a multimillionaire Mormon doesn’t help, either. And let’s remember- ‘moderate’ GOP candidates never win.
I was recently evicerated on WGMD the other day for saying that I didn’t think that any of these Republicans can beat Omaba. And, I don’t. Sure, Omaba should lose, he’s a disaster- but that doesn’t mean he’ll lose to just anybody.
I was told to remember 1980…as if I don’t. I was told that Reagan trailed the incompetent Jimmy Carter by twenty points. Okay, that’s true- but let’s remember that Reagan was a pure conservative with little or no baggage, who enjoyed universal name-recognition and possessed outstanding communication skills with two-terms as governor of the state with the largest economy in the country. Which current candidate matches Reagan’s resume…or even comes close?
None of them. I am hoping for a ‘brokered’ convention.
Maybe something like, 9/11 was an inside job or there is a secret organization trying to create a one world government. Something juicy from the left.
I forgot the entertainment value of things.
This is still linked to global warming but it’s too juicy to pass up:
You see how they got from point A to point B based on their memes? Of course it would “arguably” turn out that eating a steak causes global warming… but it would be ironic if the opposite turned out to be the case.
I would argue that there is more of a danger of pagans establishing dietary laws than some theocratic ascetics supposedly establishing their own. While you’re chasing imaginary phantoms of “jihad” on the Right people of this sort will be policing what you eat in reality or using the government to “stimulate” you to eat less steak and so on. Although corrupt politicians will probably eat steak themselves to celebrate passing laws of that sort. After all, they sit at the top of the pyramid scheme and apparently do not need to take part in our “shared sacrifice.”
Which current candidate matches Reagan’s resume…or even comes close?
That’s true but the media that the current candidates are speaking into isn’t as centralized these days so the candidate may not have to be as likeable and skilled.
“Less than one-tenth of one percent of the test mice’s brain cells are human.”
But, Alpha, don’t you understand.
To Jon and COD, that IS a “fully functioning human brain”.
It’s all just a matter of perspective.
“And let’s remember- ‘moderate’ GOP candidates never win.”
Neither did Goldwater. Are you calling Nixon a “conservative”?
George HW Bush?
“None of them. I am hoping for a ‘brokered’ convention.”
Okay, but someone is going to have to emerge from the convention as the nominee, and will have to at least have decent name recognition.
So what’s the short list?
Bring back Pawlenty?
Rubio
Jindall
Christie
Kasich
McDonnell (Gov. of VA)
Jeb Bush
….and who else would be on the short list?
You’re not one of those “Sarah!” folks, are you?
It’s one thing to say that the GOP primary field has crashed and burned. I’m not completely convinced of that, and there could always be some “LARGE UNPREDICTABLE EVENT” which shakes things up somehow between now and November, no matter who is the GOP nominee. $5 gas, North Korean freakout, Iranian shenanigans, or something completely out of left field.
But, still, it’s not like “brokered convention” means some kind of genie is going to pop out of a bottle. That genie is presumably a 35 year old natural born citizen who has been here for at least 14 years, and has a name. Who?
ALPHA, you are really making my point, although you don’t realize it. You are being very obvious, and yet you think you are fooling people.
Rick Santorum was obviously referring to 90% of Downs children who are detected in prenatal tests being aborted. The New York Times confirms that. One cannot (yet) abort a child AFTER it is born. So obviously Santorum was referring to prenatal tests.
NO, he did not say that completely. He left out the prenatal tests part, when rattling very quickly through a list of separate items. People DO talk that way in ordinary life.
But everyone knows that he was saying and what he meant.
So the only question is, Alpha, what makes you think you are fooling anyone?
Similarly, everyone realizes that Christine O”Donnell meant to say “FULLY FUNCTIONING HUMAN BRAIN [CELLS]” which is 100% correct.
Yes, Christine dropped the last word “CELLS” in the middle of a high-speed, highly-charged, back-and-forth, no holds barred, no rules, debate on national television.
So what’s the point of all this silliness?
You know what she meant. I know what she meant. We all know what she meant.
We all know that with the last word “CELLS” included, what Christine said is 100% accurate — and something you didn’t know anything about until Christine educated you.
We all know that Barack Obama did not actually campaign in 57 States. We all know that Obama meant to say he had campaigned in 47 States, he was planning to go to 2 more, and 1 his staff wouldn’t let him go to (I think Alaska, being too far or something).
We all know that Barack Obama DID NOT declare war on “PRIVACY.” He meant to declare war on “PIRACY,” not declare war on “PRIVACY.”
We all know that Barack Obama did not mean to say that “ISRAEL IS A GOOD FRIEND OF ISRAEL.” Obama meant to say that “America is a good friend of Israel.”
We all know that Barack Obama does not believe the US Constitution is 2,000 years old, even though he announced on national television, while nominating a US Supreme Court Justice, that “the Constitution is 20 centuries [2,000 years] old.”
This is how real human beings talk in real life.
When are we going to stop the silliness?
I mean, for crying out loud. Could you at least TRY to put a serious argument?
I totally understand how, in the pressure-cooker of a Senate campaign, a few words can sometimes get switched around. I spotted a few more where I knew what she meant, but she didn’t quite manage to articulate it at the time:
“I am a witch.”
“I’m me.”
“Yes, everybody knows that’s in the Constitution.”
I’d be more impressed if we could find evidence that Christine O’Donnell has a fully functioning human brain.
Are you calling Nixon a “conservative”?
Conservative as a candidate, absolutely. He was the small government guy against LBJ’s right hand man Humphrey, and was the law-and-order conservative against hippy-dippy McGovern.
George HW Bush?
Bush was a former Navy pilot, former CIA director and Reagan’s VP- so yes, he was perceived to be a conservative. After one term, it became apparent that he wasn’t.
This is too easy.
“Those who stand in the middle of the road get run over.”
“Bush was a former Navy pilot, former CIA director and Reagan’s VP- so yes, he was perceived to be a conservative.”
Nonsense. By the time of his first run as the presidential nominee he had already been rejected by the party’s right wing as not conservative enough. He had to do a major sales job to win over conservatives.
Making up faux history to back your points is a typical conservative pursuit, but those of us who lived through it aren’t so easily buffaloed.
But, still, it’s not like “brokered convention” means some kind of genie is going to pop out of a bottle. That genie is presumably a 35 year old natural born citizen who has been here for at least 14 years, and has a name. Who?
McDonnell would certainly be wayyyyy better than the four losers we’re stuck with now. And while I’m not a big Christy fan, he’d beat BO.
Nonsense. By the time of his first run as the presidential nominee he had already been rejected by the party’s right wing as not conservative enough. He had to do a major sales job to win over conservatives.
He won them over, correct? How did he do that?
Making up faux history to back your points is a typical conservative pursuit, but those of us who lived through it aren’t so easily buffaloed.
Well, I ‘lived through it,’ too. Bush ran as a conservative (you just said that Bush ‘convinced’ conservatives) and won, and ran as a known moderate and lost.
What we’ve (except Geezer) learned:
“Middle-of-the-road ‘moderates’ get run over”
The problem with terms like “conservative” is that the definition is sufficiently ambiguous that most of the candidates in this and previous elections were labeled “conservative” either before an election, during their first term, sometimes during their second term, and after the election if they won, lost, or tied.
Thus it is easy to label someone who won or lost as a conservative and attribute their win or loss as a consequence of their lack of conservative credentials. It’s a rather pointless exercise because the label changes to fit the reality. If elder Bush had won, some would have put him in the category of great conservatives. If Bush Junior had lost some would have called him a moderate or a RINO or something. Anyone can play the game. Assign the label that fits the narrative.
Dave: Bingo.
Meanwhile, here on the actual Earth, Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle and Joe Miller all defeated more moderate Republicans in primaries and then lost in the general election — two of them in states far more conservative than Delaware.
Please, Rick, explain how this fits into your theory.
…Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle and Joe Miller all defeated more moderate Republicans in primaries and then lost in the general election…
They don’t necessarily belong in the same category, although all have come up against the fact that the establishment doesn’t let go of power easily. Take Miller vs. O’Donnell:
On another note, effete journalists/imbeciles discussing what type of stories they can manufacture to sell to those still gullible enough to believe them:
There are ethics in journalism? Seriously?
Apparently only sex offenders and sexual perverts who tend toward socialism are safe from journalists. Although, even then the sensationalism of creating a story to sell may be too much for journalists to resist due to their tendency to war with each other for attention. (Or would it be more apposite to say that they whore with each other for attention?) The more sensationalistic the story to be manufactured the better… meanwhile, our retirements are being looted by politicians while their patrons pollute our economic language. But I suppose things of that sort are too boring to focus on and not entertaining enough. Apparently it’s better to focus on the ridiculous stories fed to journalists by political operatives or created by journalists hoping to sell their creations? That’s actually more boring to me. But I guess if the goal is entertainment then someone better figure out to frame basic aspects of “the economy” and reality as entertaining.
How about this, if corrupt politicians continue to allow their patrons to pollute our economic language then apocalyptic events will result! Hey, it works with global warming. Not to mention that it’s much more likely to be true in the case of results from manipulating the monetary system than in the case of “saving the earth.” You want to entertain yourself with the idea that you’re preventing apocalyptic events in the future? Don’t drive a different car, look in your wallet…
The cost of bailing out the financial services industry: $12.8 trillion Link
The destruction of our economic language and its reduction to babble for the sake of bankers:
Priceless
It’s a rather pointless exercise because the label changes to fit the reality. If elder Bush had won, some would have put him in the category of great conservatives. If Bush Junior had lost some would have called him a moderate or a RINO or something.
But it is doubtful that a conservative candidate could be elected based on vague ideas about hope and change or stories manufactured in the minds of manyLink because journalists generally wouldn’t allow that to happen on the one hand (“conservative candidate”) while they do on the other (“liberal candidate”.)
“They don’t necessarily belong in the same category, ”
That is true if we were discussing multiple categories, but in this case all three (Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle and Joe Miller) share a specific category of those who are kinda smack dab in the hard right category (REAL conservative). Geezer has the right of it here.
And really, in the general election, logic tells you that a certain type of candidate appeals to the greater number of voters. Forget about what the candidates actually are, it is what the voters perceive them to be.
The perception voters had of those 3 candidates, mostly from the candidates mouths, is that they were extreme. I have seen few if any elections where a perceived extreme candidate won (either from the left or the right). Most of the winners manage to present themselves (or are presented by their handlers) as uniters rather than dividers. In order to do that you have to hang around somewhere in the general vicinity of the center. Remember the Overton Window and recognize that the center moves, but even so, the center is still the center.
Forget about what the candidates actually are, it is what the voters perceive them to be. …. Most of the winners manage to present themselves (or are presented by their handlers) as uniters rather than dividers.
I actually prefer the “true believers” who don’t lie or deceive people as much. It’s interesting that you chose a nebulous Leftist slogan of unity or solidarity but in reality it seems like everyone is a Rightist in the sense that they do divide because someone else or some other group of people is wrong and so on.
Bush the uniter in reality? Obama the uniter in reality? Hmmm…
But it’s true that if or as American civilization declines the politicians with the best Machiavellian advisers/handlers will probably begin to win more elections. But looking past all the perceptions and the demagoguery and so on… notice that all they really seem to be united in is dividing up your wealth among their patrons. Sometimes you may get to choose which type of patron loots your wealth (too big to fail corporations or trial lawyers) but often even that choice is denied. For instance, they all tend to agree with private banks like the Fed, Goldman Sachs, etc…. mainly because they need to create more ways for debt/money to be created these days.
Interesting question: Who is lending the money to accommodate the recent exponential increase in federal borrowing?
Dave writes in #41:
This is where so many go astray. The “logic” you refer to is merely assumption stacked upon assumption, all colored by your own preferences and ideas.
To start with, WHY does it logically follow that from one election to another there will be “a certain type of candidate” that appeals to most? That is not necessarily so. In fact, many political experts will (when it does not betray their parochial interests or their patrons) explicitly analyze elections differently: The economy is good, most voters seek Type A (perhaps a competent care-taker to keep things as they are, status quo). The world is dangerous, most voters seek Type B (perhaps someone competent in military matters and foreign affairs, with the economy receding into the background). The world is safe but the economy is bad, most voters seek Type C (let’s say Bill Clinton vs. George Bush, perceived as an irreverent draft-dodger (alleged) but who cares because the Cold War is over and Bush doesn’t know the price of a gallon of milk, while Clinton promises to focus like a laser beam on the economy). Times are desperate, most voters may seek a revolutionary and are willing to take far greater risks.
The assumption of the establishment, independents, self-appointed campaign gurus, and the media that a moderate who stands for little appeals to most voters is an unwarranted leap. Indeed, it is actually contradicted by the analysis of political analysts who understand that in different elections voters are looking for different qualities depending on what they perceive to be the greatest problems facing the country.
Undoubtedly very true, and a profound and astute observation.
But aren’t you really saying (or seeing) simply the power of the media? What you are referring to — if you really think it through — has very little to do with the candidates themselves and everything to do with the power of the news media to MISREPRESENT candidates in a negative way that the news media group think doesn’t like and misrepresent in a positive way candidates they like.
Liberals are allowed to be extreme because the news media will cover for them. No conservative is ever safe, no matter how perfect, because the news media will always attack them, even if the media has to fabricate something to do it. The news media is a machine gun’s nest or artillery line up on top of the hill, shilling for liberals and attacking conservatives.
Again, Christine O’Donnell offers a useful case study. I can’t tell you much about Joe Miller’s campaign, although I met him for the first time two weeks ago for about 30 minutes at CPAC. I wouldn’t know Sharron Angle if I passed her on the sidewalk.
On the other hand, I can compare, in a scientific way, reality with perception and media portrayal makes it a useful case study to talk about Christine O’Donnell.
The extreme and laughable disparity between the real person and the false image presented is shocking. To think that any self-respecting society could pretend to be the slightest bit rational, logic-based, or reasonable while tolerating such lies is horrifying.
I know Christine O’Donnell as a real-life human being. (Unfortunately, because she is not a two-dimensional card-board cut out, she can also be a handful, and I have fought with her more than once over the years. She is a human being, with all the ups and downs that being human entails, not a face on TV.)
So I have actual data, in a scientific sense, to compare the portrayals of the news media with the real person.
Far from the juvenile and gutter theories offered her, it is that shocking and jarring chasm between the reality and the news media portrayal that has driven me to speak out “WHOA! Hold on a cotton pickin’ minute! I have personal knowledge that XYZ is a lie! That’s despicable!”
If you attended a speech by [your favorite candidate] and then watched the news media completely LIE about what you just saw live, in person, you would be shocked and outraged. And you would want to tell someone about it: “I WAS THERE! That’s not what happened!”
Long ago, I went to events that were neutral politically, such as a Congressional hearing on an OMB management initiative, only to see the news media as being incompetently and horrifyingly wrong. Even when it did not benefit one side or the other politically, it was just atrociously inaccurate. I was just there. I heard the whole thing. That’s not what happened at all.
It is frightening to think that there are actually gullible souls who actually believe what they read in the newspaper. I think every voter should have the experience of personally witnessing something, and then reading about it in the newspaper. They will never trust the news media agin.
This is where so many go astray. The “logic” you refer to is merely assumption stacked upon assumption, all colored by your own preferences and ideas.
I was going to point that out as well. It cannot always be viewed as a static “system” where votes are distributed because it’s more of a living and breathing thing. Those who emphasis the Left seem to take the same view of the electorate as they do of “the economy,” it’s like a static thing to be redistributed and so on. But sometimes it’s more of a living thing, especially in a time of crisis when the Herd wakes up. (It will probably wake up to do something stupid if the Left has any say in it, as they never let a good crisis go to waste.)
Ironically the Leftist view (generally based on image based thinking) actually leads to an almost infinite number of divisions as each static image or “voting block” is pursued and pandered to. The Rightist view (which tends to be based more on language and rhetoric*) can actually lead to Leftist themes of unity and “solidarity” if everyone begins to agree that there are truths that they can try to seek or hold to. It’s interesting how the Right tends to focus on abstract principles or a “rule book” and is less likely to seek unity, even in its own ranks.
*Sometimes to a fault…. but it’s worth noting that metaphysical language and information (word) is a basic aspect of reality that impacts the formation (image) of physical things. Recognizing this is a heresy these days, that’s why the concept of intelligent design is censored.
Metaphysical realities are not just a totally subjective thing or “religion” that is the equivalent of superstition which should be or can be safely separated from politics. Notice how a view of a “purely” physically based science which progressives tend to believe should be unified with politics* actually gives birth to superstition. Ironically their pattern of thought tends to turn science (which seeks a unity of metaphysical theories/information with the physical formation of things) into unfalsifiable forms of pseudo-science (Darwinism, eugenics and “global warming”) due to a lack of metaphysical specification/information.
*This impacts your life and your ability to use energy. The Amish or some fundamentalists wandering the countryside because they have some view of “righteousness” and so on do not. And yet the focus of Leftist Republicans is on the dangers of a fundamentalist theocracy emerging in America and so on? If history is any measure then American fundamentalists are more likely to separate themselves from politics than any other group, contrast the actual history in reality of American fundamentalists with that of the eugenics movement. Although perhaps one could imagine an Amish jihad that is being prevented by the forces of tolerance on the Left? That might be almost as entertaining as imagining that one is preventing imaginary catastrophes in the future. Putting aside history and reality in general perhaps one could imagine this, Amish buggies headed toward Washington on a jihad because they got mad about their milk being regulated. But Leftist Republicans are here to stop them from establishing a theocracy… just like they prevent other imaginary events too.
Who is more dangerous, the person who tends to view things in such a way that they want you to stand in solidarity with them in a polis/policed city or the person who will leave you alone because they’re too busy wandering the wilderness or prophesying the end of the world due to their view of “right”eousness?
The arrogance of both the Left and the Right with respect to knowledge… this is why we can’t have nice things.
It is frightening to think that there are actually gullible souls who actually believe what they read in the newspaper.
And those are the voters still literate enough to read.
“It cannot always be viewed as a static “system” where votes are distributed because it’s more of a living and breathing thing.”
That’s true. I did not intend my comment to mean that all elections and all years are the same. What appeals to voters in one election may not be the same in succeeding elections for two primary reasons. The first, as I pointed, is the Overton Window which shifts the center (as the hard right pulls further right, the new center becomes center right). Democrats are not as progressive as they once were. Just listen to the howls from the progressives. Secondly, broad appeal is situational and driven by events and conditions that the society finds itself in. Third, outcomes are often decided by a “not” vote. The candidate is “not” something or completely opposite of what we had before.
What remains clear is that broad appeal (or unappeal for the opposing candidate) is necessary for candidates to be successful. Obama’s success, for example, was partially a consequence of the lack of appeal for McCain, who was perceived as more of Bush. So Obama became the “not Bush” candidate. When you add these factors together you get a candidate with broad appeal. This is not rocket science, the more popular candidate wins (note, I said popular candidate, not popular vote).
This is not rocket science, the more popular candidate wins…
Yes, it does seem like you’re a long way from rocket science or any sort of valuable knowledge with predictive power. In retrospect, the most popular candidate always wins. Only one problem remains, this way of observing things is often linked to an illusion of knowledge of causation or a theory containing some sort of explanatory power*. If you had a theory with explanatory power then you could predict the next election or the flow of the electorate as surely as a rocket scientist can use the theory of gravity to predict the trajectory of an object. Notice how sitting around after a rocket has come to rest and claiming something along the lines of, “And there it is in the center of the circle I just drew around it, just as I predicted!” would be based on illusion of knowledge. It might be useful for charlatans or advisers who wanted to keep their job of giving advice but it wouldn’t have much to do with knowledge of value.
Did you know that the Darwinian theory of natural selection predicts the survival of the fittest too? I suspect that you like creation myths of that sort.
*E.g. Most of the winners manage to present themselves (or are presented by their handlers) as uniters rather than dividers. In order to do that you have to hang around somewhere in the general vicinity of the center.
Except when you don’t and then the circle can be drawn around the center again… do you have some valuable knowledge of causation in the electorate that is more similar to rocket science or not? On a random note, I almost framed that question in a binary way on purpose.
FYI:
The last brokered Republican Convention gave us Dewey and we all know what happened. Obama is beatable. Our candidates better start dwelling on what Obama has done to destroy our Country instead of destroying each other. All of you negative so called Republicans better start thinking postive instead of just rambling on about how we can’t win. Yes you all know who your are. Either get with the program or get out of the way. I am sick and tired of hearing how we can’t win!
I am sick and tired of hearing how we can’t win!
It’s probably better to have that attitude at this point than to promote the belief that Obama’s defeat is inevitable.
On another note, given that Santorum, Gingrich and Romney are essentially the same policy wise the real question may be who is the best politician. Most Leftist or establishment Republicans who adhere to established or conventional wisdom (i.e. not the most creative minds in the world) seem to “settle” on Romney. But it seems to me that he may an incompetent politician in many ways despite the best efforts of his advisers to perfect his rhetoric, which may be why he keeps losing despite everything apparently being in place and established with his image. Gingrich is competent in the sense that he’s skilled in the use of rhetoric but it’s divorced from the way he lives his life so he it seems that he has very high negative perceptions in reality that no amount of skill with words and political plans can overcome. Santorum isn’t as competent as Gingrich but his rhetoric isn’t as divorced from his political life or his life in general and most negative perceptions about him probably stem from people viewing him as a true believer in things that they disagree with. But that isn’t as much as a negative as one might think, especially given the fact that journalists/imbeciles tend to create false perceptions of the electorate in their own image. For example, Rove actually used “social issues” in Machiavellian ways to get George Bush elected just as he did throughout his history of being a political adviser. Yet the conventional wisdom is that the “true believer” is unelectable due to their social views? How can it be that political snakes* make use of those issues and invoke them to get people elected but then turn to claim that they make some candidates unelectable? Could it be that it’s only those candidates that they have not advised or those that do not fit into their overall plans who are to be portrayed as too extreme and so on even if the adviser just finished invoking “extremism” themselves?
E.g.
*But more people piercing themselves isn’t symbolic of the emergence of paganism that is linked to the decline of American civilization in general… mainly because pagans themselves are often too illiterate, stupid and ignorant to know anything about symbolism or “paganism” for that matter. “You mean I’m a pagan? That seems intolerant to me or somethin’! Herp, derp…” Meanwhile, their civilization is in fact declining and the solution isn’t for imbeciles to wander around seeking some sort of identity by occupying space, piercing* themselves or defecating on police cars.
The memes that emerge in the stupidity and ignorance typical to pagans will give birth to what they will by happenstance, naturally. If history is any measure then they will hardly know what they believe and it is almost as if their memes are more intelligent and goal directed than they are. Again, if history is any measure then almost the only thing they will not give birth to is a love of the ideas of the Jews or the Jews themselves, as instead the opposite arises in the imaginary chaos of “random” brain events. If it was random then you’d expect at least a 50/50 chance of it turning out some other way but it never seems to.
*”….he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed.” –Isaiah
There is no need for sadists and pagans to do what they do, yet they do. And they should be left at liberty to do what they do. In any event, the relevant point in politics is that American civilization generally declined with Boomers (including Rove, Bush, etc.) but it’s not necessarily going to inevitably decline in coming generations. So the shifting imagery typical to “Let me manipulate your perceptions no matter what the truth is.” demagoguery may actually begin to lose its effectiveness and people may begin to look for more principled, consistent candidates… like Ron Paul. Lol… you knew it was coming. And if not Ron Paul then someone else who “constitutes” their beliefs based on the Constitution and is generally consistent about things. If civilization of that sort does arise then Boomers should generally love it because they’ll be left at liberty to pierce themselves, conflate liberty and coercion in a state, entertain themselves with pseudo-scientific and superstitious ideas, establish the idea that “rights” are defined differently for different people based on their sexual desires, etc. You could still have the liberty to do all those things, it’s just that other people would be left at liberty to leave places “occupied” by nature based paganism.
“Except when you don’t and then the circle can be drawn around the center again…”
Short for Overton Window.
The center moves, albeit slowly. The center has a rightward shift. Regardless the center is always the center and again, it does not require ballistic knowledge to be able to grasp that. To put it another way, humans are prone to inaction once they find their comfort zone. That is, they are loathe to leave the comfort zone, because well, it’s uncomfortable. The center is comfortable. That’s where they stay, whenever possible.
And for my random note. In the rocket business we had a saying that once the rocket reaches apogee it has “gone ballistic” because the parabola formed by the rocket’s trajectory can now be defined (not just predicted) and the terminal point is no longer in question. That is, the rocket will land where it lands. We can (and do apply ballistics to many things, including political campaigns. There is a point where a candidates campaign reaches apogee and once it does, it’s terminal point can be defined with a great deal of accuracy. Of course campaigns do not follow a true parabolic trajectory. Still, you can examine many candidates campaigns and identify the apogee (when the campaign/candidate has gone ballistic) and know, with a great deal of accuracy, it’s terminal point. Gravity and comfort zones have a great deal in common.
Superstition will probably be the death of us all… on an esoteric note, some pagan superstitions about the symbolic piercing of the Christ:
Real dumb… but at least we got some Indiana Jones movies out of entertaining ideas of this sort.
Oops, I know we’re supposed to be talking about how we’re all going to vote for Romney. I just got a little bored with it.
Short for Overton Window
Which is merely an observation after the fact, what people really want to know is valuable theoretical information similar to a specification of physical forces which impact the trajectory of an object and so on. That’s exponentially valuable while knowledge of this sort not only isn’t rocket science, it’s almost worthless too.
If you had a more rigorously specified form of knowledge then you could predict elections instead of merely observing or drawing circles around things afterwards. You’re mixing your observations/image with predictions/word instead of keeping them distinct and then seeking a marriage or more perfect union between them.
Your mode of thought, keeping in mind that the Overton Window is an after the fact observation:
What appeals to voters in one election may not be the same in succeeding elections for two primary reasons. The first, as I pointed, is the Overton Window which shifts the center….
But you can’t use the Overton Window as an explanation or cause of anything as if it is a theory specifying forces with explanatory power while simultaneously admitting that it is defined as an observation after the fact. A sign of a shift toward pseudo-science is that conflating observations with predictions apparently allows you to claim to have “predicted” every single election that has ever taken place. But what people are looking for is knowledge of value.
Isn’t it true that if the Overton Window is imagined to be a reason or explanation for things (theoretical knowledge) and an observation (fact) then it explains every single election that has ever taken place?
If one can’t imagine how it would be falsified, it can’t be verified in reality either.
Still, you can examine many candidates campaigns and identify the apogee (when the campaign/candidate has gone ballistic) and know, with a great deal of accuracy, it’s terminal point.
That may be true but there can never be a total science to it, as science itself shows. And I suspect that you are relying on many forms of knowledge that are not scientific to come to conclusions that may well be accurate but it’s little use playing pretend that they’re the epistemic equivalent of the theory of gravity. I’d stick with what you originally realized, it’s not as if it is rocket science.
You can tell when it’s going to rain but you don’t know how much with any absolute certainty. Still, wet is wet. Predictions are never certain, but when the signs are there we grab the umbrella when we go out.
We might finally be getting down to the bottom of mynym’s navel.
Predictions are never certain…
Except when they’re conflated with observations, a conflation that generates illusions of knowledge useful only to people who are not interested in the truth of things.
The vaporous perceptions and illusions of political advisers and corrupt politicians aside, reality remains unless one dies before all their lies and manufactured “perceptions” dissipate. The electorate may become increasingly aware of lies, the manipulation of its perceptions and illusions of that sort due to the emergence of new technology that decentralizes knowledge. But like the journalists/imbeciles of the mainstream media, you can keep telling yourselves that perceptions are all that matter in elections.
Shrug, here’s a link that may illustrate a valuable form of knowledge: Link
Even on the Left, ultimately reality matters: Link
According to some estimates if they had just given all the trillions in stimulus and bailout money and so on directly to taxpayers it would have been over $50,000. That wouldn’t have “stimulated” you? I think I’d be pretty stimulated by that.
On a metaphoric note, it takes a lot to bring Lady Liberty down.
Only one candidate on the Right is talking about things like this, Ron Paul.
We might finally be getting down to….
Why are you still reading? I certainly never asked you to.
Are you making progress toward knowledge yet or just imagining it?
mynym responds to COLONIAL REPUBLICAN in #51:
Well, they’re both right — quite obviously. Colonial Republican is absolutely correct that it is time to stop breaking saloon chairs over each other’s heads and shoving each other out the pane glass window at the front of the saloon into the street.
GET BUSY, ALREADY! In that sense, Colonial Republican and mynym are trying to head in the same direction.
I was about to play amateur football at a church picnic ages ago, but the other team was distracted looking at someone’s photographs, bunched up. Our team kept shouting for them to start the game. Finally, I just took the ball (we were throwing instead of a kick-off) and yelled “HEADS UP!” and I just threw the ball in their direction (not caring if it counted as a good play or not, just to get the game started). They suddenly scattered back into place, and the game started.
It’s time to stop foolling around and just shout “GAME ON!”
In that respect, I would nominate Colonial Republican for quarterback.
Responding to Dave in #53, and generally, I promised myself I was going to restrain myself, stop commenting, etc. But your comment perfectly illustrates two completely different schools of thought, and I think the difference is gigantically important to the immediate tasks in front of us.
Many assume that picking a candidate is like launching a rocket. If you aim the rocket in the right direction and launch it with the right energy, that is IF YOU PICK THE PERFECT CANDIDATE, success is automatic.
THE RIGHT CANDIDATE = WE WIN, AUTOMATICALLY.
This is absolutely wrong in my view. Electoral success, especially for the minority party in a State, is not determined by picking the perfect candidate, but by running a (near) perfect campaign, every single day.
If you understand that it is the campaign — not the candidate — that matters MOST, then you work every day to win. Otherwise, you sit back, pop some pop corn and WATCH, and throw insults at the candidate.
Success depends not just on having a great canddiate BUT ALSO ON HAVING A GREAT PARTY — EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU. Everyone counts. All hands on deck. There is no one who won’t be missed. There is no one we can do without. There is no one too “small,” too part time, too unnoticed to spare.
If you understand that it is the quality of the CAMPAIGN that matters, YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, rather than just floating helplessly with the wind. YOU can go get trained. YOU can take charge of your E.D., whether the official leader or just assisting. YOU can make it happen.
If you think it is exclusively about the candidate, then you can sit back, do nothing, be lazy, and moan and groan and criticize, without being in any danger of having to do any work.
Bill Clinton had lots of baggage. Yet he won. A candidate has “baggage” when the opposing camp does a good job of puffing up issues into big deals, the candidate’s camp FAILS to defuse and respond to. A candidate is called a “STRONG CANDIDATE,” not because there is nothing in their life or career to criticize, but because their campaign does a better job of refuting, shouting down, obscuring, distracting from, etc. the criticism of their candidate than the other side does in attacking the candidate.
In hindsight, a candidate had “baggage” because their party did a lousy job of defending them.
In hindsight, a candidate was a “strong” candidate because their party PREVENTED several dozen potential land mines and time bombs from exploding.
IF YOU HAVE FRIENDS WHO HELP YOU CARRY YOUR SUITCASES, THEN “BAGGAGE” IS NEVER A PROBLEM.
Coons: PENDING LAWSUITS over political persecution of his rivals, some still in the courts. “Baggage?” No, because Republicans were more interested in attacking each other than in winning.
I walked neighborhoods for the RNC Victory campaign effort in October 2010 and DEMOCRATS told me they were voting for Christine O’Donnell because Chris Coons was their boss AND THEY COULDN’T STAND COONS after working under him. NCC finances collapsing. But because Republicans did not effectively address Coons’ weaknesses, he is considered a “strong” candidate. But it was the Democrat coalition that was strong, while the Republican coalition was weak.
Obviously, to respond more scientifically to Dave’s analysis, a campaign is most definitely NOT a ballistic motion. While I abhor the tendency to get all wrapped up in metaphors, and getting lost in the poetic imagery, a political campaign is called a RACE. That is a better model than a ballistic trajectory. In ballistic motion, the energy is imparted at the start (a gun’s internal explosion of gunpowder or a rocket’s engine), then the force STOPS, and the object COASTS — unpowered — along a ballistic trajectory, following only the laws of physics.
A campaign is more like a race, where EVERY STEP of the runner COUNTS. Every time the runner hits the ground and puts one foot in front of the other, each and every step makes a difference, from the starting gun, to cross the finish line tape. Everything that happens every hour of every day, right up until the polls close can change the outcome.
What should we REALLY care about and be talking about? Here’s to you Colonial Republican:
Obama campaign co-chair tied to subprime mortgage crisis
Daily Caller
Published: 1:14 AM 02/24/2012
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/24/obama-campaign-co-chair-tied-to-subprime-mortgage-crisis/
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, the Democrat who was named a national co-chair of President Obama’s re-election campaign on Wednesday, served on the board of a company that is widely blamed for helping start the subprime mortgage crisis in 2007.
Beginning in 2004, Patrick served two years on the five-member board of ACC Capital Holdings, the parent company of Ameriquest Mortgage. He was paid a $360,000 annual salary for his efforts, according to “All The Devils Are Here,” a history of the financial crisis by Bethany McClean and Joe Nocera.
Ameriquest had already been the subject of numerous criminal complaints when Patrick joined the board of ACC. But despite its troubles, the mortgage company was the country’s “dominant subprime lender” in the years preceding the housing crisis, according to McClean and Nocera.
The company’s short-term success had much to do with the fact that it would loan money to just about anyone, regardless of income. In an effort to compete, other mortgage companies began issuing loans that were unlikely to be repaid, a practice that would eventually cripple the industry and later the American economy itself.
Meanwhile, here on the actual Earth, Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle and Joe Miller all defeated more moderate Republicans in primaries and then lost in the general election — two of them in states far more conservative than Delaware.
Please, Rick, explain how this fits into your theory.
Well, the most obvious way the above ‘fits in’ with my theory is that my theory isn’t a theory at all but a simple recital of results. Secondly, my ‘theory’ concerns presidential elections. And finally, those of you who always cite TEA Party ‘losses’ never mention the victories; Scott and Rubio in Florida, Toomey in PA, McDonnell in VA, Walker in WI and so on.
Rick in Post 68:
Your post condradicts istself.
Secondly, my ‘theory’ concerns presidential elections. And finally, those of you who always cite TEA Party ‘losses’ never mention the victories; Scott and Rubio in Florida, Toomey in PA, McDonnell in VA, Walker in WI and so on.
Well which is it Presidential elections or state elections?
Rick I think you need to step back and decide whether your a common pessimist or a grand pessimist. Either way I wouldn’t want you on my campaign team.
1. What are you talking about?
2. Do you think that maybe you could learn to ‘tag’ quotes to differentiate them from your comments…like this;
…the pessimist Rick thinks blah,blah, blah…
Rick,
Its not what I am talking about, its what you are saying. You can defend your statements any way you want but they are still your statements and your blah, blah, blah.
The least you could do is answer my question, if there is an answer somewhere in your responses.
Ford, Dole and McCain lost. That is a fact.
They were perceived ‘moderates’…that also is a fact.
You choose to ignore recent history, and support a ‘moderate’ (actually, a liberal).
So don’t be shocked when Romney gets his head handed to him.
People who make the same mistake are really, really dumb.
Rick,
For one last time, I am supporting the Republican nominee period. You however, just keep saying we can’t win with anyone you perceive as a moderate. I think you have beat your opinion into the ground. This election is not about a moderate or conservative Republican winning, it is about defeating Obama period. One final question, will you vote for the Republican nominee whoever he maybe or not?
You however, just keep saying we can’t win with anyone you perceive as a moderate.
Not ‘can’t'….it’s just unlikely.
…will you vote for the Republican nominee whoever he maybe or not?
No. I don’t vote for lying, finger-in-the-wind frauds like Romney.
Rick,
You just declared yourself as a reason we have Obama as our President. At this point one who does not vote should not be preaching about politics. Just hold your breath and wait for the second coming of the Messiah to satisfy your childish view on the real problems. On second thought maybe you voted for Obama and you are a real part of the problem. Either way I see no reason to continue discussing politics with one who is so narrow minded as you.
Rick,
You just declared yourself as a reason we have Obama as our President.
Wow! I didn’t realize that one person in a nation of 300+ million had that much clout.
…I see no reason to continue discussing politics with one who is so narrow minded as you.
I see. I should jettison my standards like you do, and thus, stand for nothing. I should waver and vacillate, like your candidates do. I should believe that a cultural schism can be solved politically.
Sorry, buddy.
Rick,
No, I feel sorry for you. You do stand for nothing but being cynical. By the way they are not my candidates they are my parties candidates. See I do have a standard I am A REPUBLICAN, what are you???
I cannot doubt the conservative bonafides of the likes of President Ford, or Senators McCain or Dole. The record just does not support calling them “moderates.” McCain was willing to go out on ledges that most conservatives were afraid to. He fought against government excesses and spending. He fought Obama when his approval ratings were in the sixties and Republicans were being told they had to give up conservatism. His stand against Harry Reid in 2005 led to the end of fillibusters of judges, paving the way for John Roberts and Samuel Alito to be confirmed. Bob Dole was a hawk on Vietnam, voted against Medicare and was a great champion for life before it was fashionable. Gerald Ford proved to be a healer for a painful time, one our country sorely missed. But he was not afraid to fight the Democrats either, casting thirty seven vetoes in his short presidency and made most of them stick.
The point is that Dole, Ford and McCain did not lose because they were not conservative enough. Was Ronald Reagan conservative enough when he signed the biggest tax hike in history? Or when he signed the biggest amnesty for illegal immigrants ever? Or when he made deals with terrorists for weapons for other insurgents? He wasn’t a perfect conservative either.
But he knew how to deliver a message. Ford, Dole and McCain could not. To post anywhere that Mitt Romney is somehow not a conservative is simply foolish. This man understands capitalism, free markets and their power better than anyone in this race. They made him a wealthy man. And they helped him make many other men wealthy. And those wealthy men have created hundreds of thousands of jobs.
He’s held some bad positions in the past. We know that. Ronald Reagan was a machine Democrat. He was a union president. Do we hold that against him? Of course not. If we must judge Mitt Romney, judge him for what he is today, not the isolated smudges on his record. The man who’s investment decisions created more jobs than this entire administration has. The man who saved the Salt Lake Olympics. The question about his is not whether or not he’s conservative enough. But can he deliver the message?
Santorum talks the talk. Mitt Romney has walked the walk. Is he perfect? No. Is he good enough? By far. We must remember there will never be another Reagan. Beyond that, not even Ronald Reagan could live up to the image of Ronald Reagan so many conservatives love to paint of him. But he could deliver a message. With no internet, no Fox News and no Twitter or Facebook to get his message out, he got it out…and he was always heard.
If this campaign were truly a fight between a moderate, a liberal and a conservative, I could understand the angst. I simply can’t. This is a battle among three conservatives as to who can best heal our shattered economy and keep faith with our Constitution. Now I do not agree with every position held by every one of them. But that does not make them moderates. To argue such is to simply be closed minded. We are in part suffering now because we have a closed minded leader.
We can’t afford another one….or another term with this one.
Rick: The problem with reciting facts is that there is no proof, or even any evidence, that the candidates you consider “conservative” did not win, nor those you consider “moderate” lose, because they carried those labels. Coincidence does not constitute causality.
See I do have a standard I am A REPUBLICAN, what are you???
Party affiliation doesn’t constitute principle. I’m not voting for a finger-in-the-wind, liberal serial liar.
Coincidence does not constitute causality.
It’s not ‘coincidence’ that the moderate Ford, Dole and McCain lost, nor is it ‘coincidence’ that the conservative Nixon, Reagan and GW Bush won. This is a right-of-center country- give the electorate a choice, and they’ll vote GOP, run a Democrat Lite, and lose.
“It’s not ‘coincidence’ that the moderate Ford, Dole and McCain lost, nor is it ‘coincidence’ that the conservative Nixon, Reagan and GW Bush won. This is a right-of-center country- give the electorate a choice, and they’ll vote GOP, run a Democrat Lite, and lose.”
Yes, I already know your contention. What you don’t have is anything beyond your assertion to back up your claims. Unless you can cite data to back this up, it is indeed merely coincidence.
Nixon, by the way, was not even the most conservative candidate in the 1968 elections, and was not depicted as a “conservative” by most people running four years after Goldwater. So even by your own ridiculously low standard, the statement isn’t accurate.
Nixon, by the way, was not even the most conservative candidate in the 1968 elections, and was not depicted as a “conservative” by most people running four years after Goldwater. So even by your own ridiculously low standard, the statement isn’t accurate.
Wrong. Nixon ran as a conservative, twice- against Big Government HHH, and against the anti-war hippy, McGovern.
Ford, Dole and McCain proudly ran as ‘healers,’ or ‘moderates’ or ‘cross-the-aisle’ deal-makers. Nixon. Reagan and George W. didn’t.
Rick,
You still haven’t said 1. if you are going to vote. 2. If you are going to vote who will you vote for.
I still believe you are a cynical person and totaly confused with your abstract conclusions on who is a conservative vs moderate. Also, your rash name calling of people who have had the guts to step and run for Office displays a childish attitude. If the average voter felt the way you do no one would be electable. Man you need to get off your soap box and face the real world. Also, Party affliation does constitute principle contrary to your cynical view.
So the fraud crushed the Catholic Sharia law nutbag. LMAO! Your guy is horrible.
Colonial Republican writes: “If the average voter felt the way you do no one would be electable.”
That’s exactly the problem. In our elections, we have to vote for a human being, not a robot or demi-god. You can always find something about any candidate, or human being in any role, to find fault with.
Imagine if we went through life treating friends, co-workers or family the way some want to rake candidates over the coals: Constantly looking for every fault we can find and then magnifying it as big as we can. Yes we have to choose between candidates and so we look for differences. But at the end of the day, none of the candidates are THAT bad.
In fact, ironically, our American system was specifically designed with this reality in mind, that elected officials will be imperfect people.
Imagine trying to choose which brand of shampoo to buy. You stare at each bottle and find everything possible wrong with choice. Instead of comparing the brands to quickly make your choice, you become totally paralyzed finding every fault you can see with each choice. Instead of choosing which candidate you prefer, you become obsessed with every thing wrong with each of them, and never do make any choice at all.
So after Romney’s win in Michigan (despite Democrats voting for Santorum or Paul in an open primary) and Arizona, it does become time to start accepting that we will have to support Mitt Romney over Barack Obama.
Mitt Romney can beat Barack Obama (though I think Newt or Santorum could do a better job of beating Obama in November). And it is up to us to MAKE IT HAPPEN, not to simply sit in the peanut gallery and throw insults. Our job is to “GIT ‘R DONE” not just spout opinions.
But Romney supporters are wrong in their theory that simply by launching the “right” candidate in the direction of November, victory is assured.
Romney WILL LOSE unless RINO’s, moderate Republicans, nameless, faceless establishment apparatchiks, self-appointed experts and gurus, etc. CHANGE THEIR ELECTION STRATEGIES AND THEORIES.
The election theory under which people think Romney is electable is a FAILED political concept under which Romney will lose. If the political analysis that calls Romney most electable is followed during the campaign, Romney’s candidacy will end in disasster.
I CHALLENGE SUCH FOLKS WITH THE FOLLOWING:
WHICH WAS THE BETTER COMPUTER (especially at the start of the desk top computer revolution)?
Apple?
Or Microsoft based IBM type?
Hands down, Apple computers and operating systems were (especially at the beginning) vastly superior to the Microsoft operating system running on IBM clones.
DID THE BEST PRODUCT WIN? HELL, NO.
Superior MARKETING strategies defeated the better product. The inferior product beat the pants off the better product, because of Microsoft’s superior marketing strategies and efforts.
The theory — perfectly expressed by Dave in ballistic rocket terms — that success comes from launching a perfect candidate, and then DOING NOTHING until guaranteed success on election day — is why moderate Republicans fail.
The ballistic analogy offered by moderate Dave is perfect, because a ballistic trajectory means COASTING TO THE TARGET. A ballistic object (any object following ballistic motion, to be correct) IS COASTING after an initial burst of energy.
Moderate Dave gives us the perfect explanation of moderate Republican / RINO thinking:
They expect to COAST until election day. Choose the “perfect” candidate — who of course DOES NOT EXIST — and then COAST all the way to election day.
This thinking is exactly why the DEGOP is a disaster. Because the Democrats are pursuing an effective electoral strategy and the moderates and RINO’s are fiercely dedicated to a FAILED electoral strategy.
The DEGOP election strategy is: (1) pick a perfect candidate (who doesn’t exist and never has existed in the history of mankind), (2) expect a majority of Delaware Republicans, Democrats, independents, and third party voters to just AUTOMATICALLY vote for this candidate. (3) Do not give voters any REASON to vote for the Republian candidate. (4) Believe whatever the news media says about the Republican (but not the Democrat), and don’t ASK the candidate for his side of the story. (5) As soon as the Democrats find something to criticize about the GOP nominee — which they *ALWAYS* will 100% of the time, DUMP YOUR CANDIDATE OVER BOARD. Make sure you are publicly seen as the *FIRST* to criticize your own party’s nominee to prove how high-minded you are. The Democrats don’t need to campaign against the Republican, because Republicans will do it for them. Republicans want to run out in front of the parade and be seen as the FIRST to criticize the GOP nominee over any real or imagined fault. (6) Wait until two weeks before the election and then run around in a frenzy — way too late to do any good — and then claim you worked hard campaigning. (7) Remind Democrats to vote on election day. (8) Live in self-denial, and repeat the same mistakes election after election.
Because there is no such thing as a perfect candidate, when RINO’s discover a fault in their previously perfect candidate, their entire theory falls apart. Their strategy is based upon something that never has existed and never will. So when a fault is discovered in their candidate, they have no Plan B. They can’t win.
The only thing the Democrats in Delaware have to do is find something wrong with the “perfect” GOP nominee, and the RINO’s and moderate Republicans are toast. They have nowhere to go.
Because their electoral strategy is not based upon running an actual human being for political office, they cannot stand up for their nominee when under attack.
GUARANTEED: Over a billion dollars will be spent smearing Mitt Romney and mischaracterizing him. If you are not ready to RESPOND to these smears on MItt Romney, you may as well make your reservations for the Obama Inaugural Galas of January 2013.
You still haven’t said 1. if you are going to vote.
Yes. Just like I did in ’10- there are other races besides the presidential race.
2. If you are going to vote who will you vote for.
It depends on who the nominee is. For example, I voted for Bush in 2000, but not in ’04, and I didn’t vote for Mr. Cross-the-Aisle, either (I voted Constitution Party). Did you know that as a percentage of eligible voters, the turnout was down in ’10? Gee, I wonder why?
I still believe you are a cynical person and totaly confused with your abstract conclusions on who is a conservative vs moderate.
Oh, yes- the guy who bragged about his healthcare plan- the model for Omabacare- is a conservative. LOL
Also, your rash name calling of people who have had the guts to step and run for Office displays a childish attitude.
Care to cite an example? i didn’t think so. More bulls#!t.
Also, Party affliation does constitute principle contrary to your cynical view.
Really? Then what are Romney’s principles? He signed state-run healthcare, the model for Omabacare, and he took a huge federal bailout for ‘his’ Salt Lake Olympics. Isn’t he opposed to Omabacare? Isn’t he opposed to the bailouits? Explain, please.
Rick,
Also, your rash name calling of people who have had the guts to step and run for Office displays a childish attitude.
Care to cite an example? i didn’t think so. More bulls#!t.
The following are your words from Post #80,
Party affiliation doesn’t constitute principle. I’m not voting for a finger-in-the-wind, liberal serial liar.
Rick, your a lost cause and I for one will no longer consider you a person to exchange political views with. I would strongly recommend you see a shrink!
Here’s a good example: Christine O’Donnell was the 2010 and 2008 Republican nominee for US Senate.
OKAY, MAYBE SOON WE WILL HAVE OTHER “CASE STUDIES” TO ANALYZE — maybe a win or loss by Kovach and others. But for now, the most recent data and “case study” doesn’t change just because we keep analyzing the same case study.
O’Donnell was mocked by mental midgets not worthy to tie Christine’s intellectual sandals, when Christine asked her 2008 general election campaign manager to select a cell phone system for her campaign LEAST susceptible to interception. (Remember that Newt Gingrich’s cell phone call in the 1990′s was intercepted and recorded, and provided to the news media.)
The mental midgets — not 1/10th as smart as Christine — hooted and hollered and mocked the idea of a political opponent intercepting Christine’s cell phone calls.
YET ONE OF THE LARGEST AND MOST POWERFUL NEWS ORGANIZATIONS IN THE WORLD — NEWS CORP (parent of Fox News) — MAY BE DISMANTLED OVER THE ON-GOING SCANDAL OF
– WAIT FOR IT –
HUNDREDS of news targets’ cell phones were hacked by “News of the World” reporters (a weekend tabloid, subsidiary of News Corp — the parent of FOX NEWS)
In 2006 — two years BEFORE Christine urged her campaign manager to consider security while choosing a cell phone system in 2008 —
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rebekah-brookss-phone-hacked-weekly-7465084.html
HUNDREDS of government officials, politicians, celebrities, and other potential news makers had their cell phones hacked by private investigators for the NEWS CORP subsidiary. And that resulted in JAIL in 2007, a full year before O’Donnell asked Kristin Murray to take care in which cell phone system to select for her campaign.
So who is the weak link? The candidate, who was 100% CORRECT? Or the DEGOP that doesn’t have the sense to spend 30 seconds researching an issue before leaping off a cliff?
Christine was right. DEGOP establishment types were stupid. THey mouthed off BEFORE finding out the facts. The London scandal was news in 2007. It is still on-going. How stupid do you have to be to not know these things?
SO HOW ARE YOU GOING TO RESPOND WHEN OBAMA’S BILLION DOLLAR CAMPAIGN SMEARS MITT ROMNEY?
ARE YOU READY?
OR ARE YOU PUTTY IN OBAMA’S HANDS?
By the way, credit for this find comes from THE DRUDGE REPORT. For those who cannot understand someone (me) offended by repeated misinformation, I am simply looking at what is on today’s Drudge Report, then REMEMBERING the uninformed mockery of small minds. This is triggered simply by looking at today’s news on Drudge. I am just minding my own business, reading todays’ news.
Rick, your a lost cause and I for one will no longer consider you a person to exchange political views with.
Is that a promise?
Romney plays to the ‘moderates,’ and hence, gets nowhere with the base. Ask McCain how well it works out when you lose the base.
This is not to say that Romney can’t win, especially if we have $5 gas. However, Romney has enough of a problem with his liberal record that he really needs to stop making dumb, amateurish mistakes; “I don’t know much about NASCAR, but I know who runs it” and “my wife has two Cadillacs” are just flat-out stupid things to say, because they’re going to be used by the ‘mainstream’ media to influence the malliable dolts, i.e. the very vacillating ‘moderates’ than Romney foolishly wants to court.
….i.e. the very vacillating ‘moderates’ than Romney foolishly wants to court.
It is ironic when Republicans take a static view of the very portion of the electorate most likely to vacillate. It’s actually not good to fit try to fit yourself in their image because there’s not much there.
Ironically, they may be more likely to respond to strong leadership simply because it is strong even when it’s not like them. After all, they don’t necessarily like themselves. And yet here politicians are trying to appeal to them when the best way to appeal to them is probably as simple as: “Just be yourself.” Focus on who you are and don’t change but claim to be bringing the change.
This doesn’t mean saying “I’m not a witch.” (drawing the focus to an image of what you are not instead of what you are) or even more idiotic “I’m you.” (drawing the focus to Delawareans who in my experience actually tend to want external leadership because they can’t govern themselves and therefore don’t want to elect themselves). Consider that they probably don’t even like themselves that much. It’s probably as simple as, just be yourself and be a strong leader and “moderates” can take it or leave it. It’s like dealing with children. You can’t parent them while being one of them and they actually don’t want you to be one of them anyway.
For those who don’t know what I’m alluding to: Link
1 Corinthians 13:11 (NASB)
11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
You think this is about the past? NO, THIS IS ABOUT THE *FUTURE* !
When the same false smears are thrown at Mitt Romney (or whomever), backed by Obama’s billion dollar campaign fund, ARE YOU GOING TO
(A) FALL FOR IT AND LINE UP BEHIND THE LIBERAL SMEARS of our Republican nominee for President, probably Mitt Romney, agreeing and promoting the liberal agenda, or
(B) BE READY AND DILIGENT TO SHOUT DOWN THE LIES by Obama against our GOP nominee for President in 2012?
You think this is about CoD. NO, THIS IS ABOUT *YOU*! Who are you? Whom do you want to be? What kind of person do you want to be? Are you going to LEARN and GROW from experiences, or continue to be the same?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/9114105/James-Murdoch-resigns-from-News-International-as-firm-admits-papers-could-be-sold-off.html
TODAY’S NEWS: Famous (then a teen) singer CHARLOTTE CHURCH wins in court 600,000 POUNDS (about 1 million DOLLARS) in court because of CELL PHONE HACKING by London Tabloid “News of the World,” a sister organization to FOX NEWS.
Charlotte Church’s — who was just a singer, not even in politics — had her cell phone conversations intercepted and her cell phone voice mail messages hacked, and used as leads to run new stories. (Note: The resulting news stories may be BASED ON what is learned, and might not directly disclose the hacking.)
Charlotte Church tells passionately in this video press conference how her mother’s medical conditions were released in the media and her family — who were not in the public eye — were hounded, simply because THEY HAD A FAMOUS DAUGHTER.
YESTERDAY’S NEWS: RINO”s, establishment Republicans and liberals reveal themselves as too dumb to know that cell phones can be intercepted and voicemail hacked. Embarrasing only themselves, RINO’s and liberals mocked the official 2008 and 2010 Republican nominee for US Senate. Even though Newt Gingrich’s cell phone was famously hacked in the 1990′s, these mental midgets who don’t know much about anything imagine themselves to be wise when in fact they are truly small minded and uneducated.
Whom are we laughing at now? Kristin Murray who publicly raised this issue, making Murray look ridiculous? Or the smarter, more correct Republican nominee, proven to be right?
Again, I’m fighting with CoD. This is not about her.
IT IS ABOUT THIS:
ARE YOU TIRED OF LOSING YET?
HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO KEEP LOSING UNTIL WE FINALLY GET TIRED OF IT ?
HOW MANY ELECTIONS IS THE GOP GOING TO LOSE BEFORE WE LEARN OUR LESSONS?
HOW LONG ARE WE GOING TO WATCH THE COUNTRY FALL APART BEFORE WE GROW UP?
1 Corinthians 13:11 (NASB)
11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
mynym writes:
mynym takes a giant step forward in analyzing the divide between the conservative wing and the establishment wing of the GOP. Notice that the REAL ISSUE is not really about issues — but about campaign tactics. Using failed campaign tactics, the establishment types are AFRAID, and don’t know why they are losing elections. They are afraid of conservative issues that are proven winners, but are criticized by the mainstream media, because establishment Republicans don’t know why they can’t win elections.
So they blame conservative issues and social issues — which usually increase Republican vote totals — instead of learning from their mistakes and growing and improving their craft.
mynym identifies part of this divide: Moderate voters who, by definition, (a) don’t care quite as much about politics or the future of the country and (b) can’t make up their minds and (c) are less informed about politics, become the tail that wags the dog for establishment Republicans.
Instead of PERSUADING undecided voters, with sound reasons, establishment gurus propose to figure out what the undecided middle wants — WHEN THEY DON’T KNOW THEMSELVES — and present a candidate that reflects what the undecided voters want. But those voters don’t know themselves what they want. You have to PERSUADE, EXPLAIN, EDUCATE.
Worse, the establishment types are the self-appointed gurus who have LOST TOUCH with reality, real people, and real life, by congratulating themselves with their “sophisticated” (lacking common sense) political techniques. I know some of these people personally. To walk in to certain conservative organizations I need to bring an oxygen mask.
Romans 1:22 (NASB) “22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,”
These people run the GOP. WHY? Because they have spent so much time dutifully learning what does not work and teaching other failed ideas. While conservatives are out in the real world living real lives, and understanding real people, the self-appointed leaders of the GOP drink wine and eat cheese in anti-septic think tanks, but couldn’t run a winning election to save their lives.
And then you will say — okay, Moseley, what makes you think YOU can tell anyone how to win elections?
CLICK HERE:
http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/training/School.cfm?SchoolID=19517
Before you even think it, the answer is there.
Even the jester in the court of public opinion knows to be himself and be honest to his view of the truth. If he was only pursuing the ratings/votes of people who couldn’t make up their minds then his antics would fail.
Considering the manufactured stories of journalists (i.e. stupid people interested in selling sensationalistic stories) as worthy of anything but ridicule only begets more of the same. When people are being ridiculous you have to ridicule them, not empathize with them.
Why did Christine O’Donnell lose, and continues to lose?
Narcissism.
mynym in #98:
I asked the moderator to remove my post, because God is trying to make me a nicer person (He has a long way to go) and is working hard rooting out my faults and hang-ups. So when I regret going too far, I am trying to improve myself, by God’s grace. There are plenty of things that can be of great importance, and deserve to be vigorously debated. But I am struggling to find the right balance to argue forcefully but without being unpleasant, and to disagree without being disagreeable. This has a lot to do with discovering what is motivating things in ourselves but also what hot buttons are unfair to other people. If the country were not at a crossroads between many dramatically different alternate futures, I really should just be quiet. Maybe I should anyway.
I asked the moderator to remove my post…
That’s too bad, it probably would have been the most interesting comment here. You certainly wouldn’t have hurt my feelings by not being nice. I tend more toward the truth in the whole concept of speaking the truth in love. But I suppose it is a public forum and some people may think that you’re not a nice fellow and so on.
I don’t know if it helps any but you seem pretty nice to me. But being nice isn’t the be all, end all for me that it seems to be to some people.
Even if O’Donnell was as narcissistic as Obama if she had journ”o”lists on her side then more people would see her sacrifices for an external cause in almost Messianic terms. After all, that is how the story would be presented to them.
mynym, at the expense of being “interesting,” there are some things that have no hope of being helpful or accomplsihing anything unless said individually. Even then, they still might not do any good. But sometimes saying it the wrong way is worse than what is actually being said. There are occasions when I have done more harm than I ever realized being “right” but saying it the wrong way. And I dimly perceive how such things can snowball and accumulate. So I am dimly aware that there isn’t any chance of my comment adding to positive growth.