Santorum Article

[DMcB]

[b] [url="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/27/in-what-may-be-final-turn-in-gop-roller-coaster-santorum-begins-his-ascent/#ixzz1hl1kZTOE"]In What May Be Final Turn in GOP Roller Coaster, Will Santorum Get Chance at Ascent?[/url][/b]

[size=3]
[url="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/27/in-what-may-be-final-turn-in-gop-roller-coaster-santorum-begins-his-ascent/#ixzz1hl1kZTOE"]Published December 27, 2011[/url][/size][size=3]
[url="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/27/in-what-may-be-final-turn-in-gop-roller-coaster-santorum-begins-his-ascent/#ixzz1hl1kZTOE"]FoxNews.com[/url][/size]

[4588686]

I dislike that he's used his name to promote anal sex.

[4588686]

But in all seriousness, the man is a complete sleazeball. I can take solace in knowing that however humiliating his 18 point loss to Casey in Pennsylvania was, his defeat in the primaries will be far more so.

[Ash Wednesday]

The situation the GOP is in kind of reminds me of the situation the Democrats had in 2004. Admittedly my press coverage is more varied compared to back then now that I live overseas. But from the coverage I'm getting, the GOP seems to be in an identity crisis at the moment. First it was, uh, Perry, then Cain, now Newt, and Santorum...and...the Mittster...?

I don't even recall the Dems being in this kind of quagmire in 2004. I remember Howard Dean screamed and then Kerry stepped in, but that's about it.

I haven't had the time this fall to really be on phatmass and follow the elections drumming up, but the GOP seems to be a mess. Or is that just the coverage I get overseas?

[4588686]

The situation of the GOP is this. The only serious alternative candidate to Mitt Romney is Rick Perry who has effectively disqualified himself for his heresy on immigration and his poor performance in the debates (as well as a few other things like a speech he gave that made him look mentally unbalanced or drunk). The rest are either like Michele Bachman, that is they are serious, sincere people who are also somewhat [mod]MIKolbe-Language[/mod] crazy, or individuals like Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich, entrepreneurial charlatans (to quote the conservative columnist, George Will) who didn't expect to ever really get to front-runner status, but merely hoped to plug their own brand and make some money from the publicity. This is why both were unprepared to capitalize on their momentum. Neither had serious network infrastructure on the ground in battle ground states. So the party will be left with Mitt Romney, whose most (and maybe only) sincere political belief seems to be that Mitt Romney ought to be President. He may be able to beat Obama. While he is a sincere opportunist he is not a crazy person and may be able to entice independents with his pretense of reasonable conservatism.

[eustace scrubb]

Hasan pretty much nailed it.

Btw I'm a socialist who tends to vote democrat, but I'm probably writing in Ron Paul on election day. We need human rights back and neither party is interested in doing that. It would be nice to have a president who actually cares about that. And considering that even RALPH NADER has come close to endorsing him, well...

Edited December 28, 2011 by eustace scrubb

[Cherie]

Pro-lifers in PA do not like Santorum. He supported the re-election of pro-abortion Specter against the very pro-life Twomey (who is now in Specter's seat) in 2004. Yes, it was for political reasons, hoping he'd get Specter's support when he (Santorum) was up for re-election two years later. But when it comes to life issues, politics shouldn't play into it like that and pro-life Pennsylvanians are upset with him for "selling out."

So yeah.

[eustace scrubb]

Democracy is all about compromise. If this was pre-Roe v. Wade, it wouldn't be an issue. But now, the country is divided in half over it. That makes it easy for politicians (PARTICULARLY career ones...) to cave on the issue.

[4588686]

[quote name='CherieMadame' timestamp='1325130104' post='2359083']
Pro-lifers in PA do not like Santorum. He supported the re-election of pro-abortion Specter against the very pro-life Twomey (who is now in Specter's seat) in 2004. Yes, it was for political reasons, hoping he'd get Specter's support when he (Santorum) was up for re-election two years later. But when it comes to life issues, politics shouldn't play into it like that and pro-life Pennsylvanians are upset with him for "selling out."

So yeah.
[/quote]

Maybe he supported him because it does not matter that the Senator would be pro-choice since the Senate does not have the power to outlaw abortion. Nothing short of a Constitutional Amendment will be able to outlaw abortion.

[4588686]

[quote name='eustace scrubb' timestamp='1325060040' post='2358473']
Hasan pretty much nailed it.

Btw I'm a socialist who tends to vote democrat, but I'm probably writing in Ron Paul on election day. We need human rights back and neither party is interested in doing that. It would be nice to have a president who actually cares about that. And considering that even RALPH NADER has come close to endorsing him, well...
[/quote]

Well. Unfortunately there is no compromise to be had since Jesus Christ himself solemnly declared it a mortal sin to vote for democrats...erm..um..I mean..'anti-life candidates'. Fortunately for the GOP, Jesus said nothing about lax environmental standards that will cause thousands of deaths (including miscarriages) due to the chronic illnesses they will cause in the coming decades.

That's good, wholesome Christian voting.

[eustace scrubb]

That passive-aggressive personal attack on me was extremely out-of-line.

Of lesser importance, you completely misrepresented my political views.

[Cherie]

In 2004, Twomey very easily could have won with Santorum's support. If he never had a fighting chance against Specter, pro-life Pennsylvanians could better understand. As it is, most of us are pretty upset with Santorum about it.

[4588686]

[quote name='eustace scrubb' timestamp='1325159807' post='2359252']
That passive-aggressive personal attack on me was extremely out-of-line.

Of lesser importance, you completely misrepresented my political views.
[/quote]

I attacked neither you nor your political views. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was given that you identified as a Socialist who votes for democrats and my comment was a sarcastic condemnation of the voting mentality of the 'religious right.'

Edit:

Maybe here is where the confusion arose. I meant to quote this:

[i][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Democracy is all about compromise. If this was pre-Roe v. Wade, it wouldn't be an issue. But now, the country is divided in half over it. That makes it easy for politicians (PARTICULARLY career ones...) to cave on the issue. [/font][/color][/i]

Edited December 29, 2011 by Hasan

[MithLuin]

Santorum was too conservative to win re-election in PA (and only won his election in the first place because the Democrats sabotaged his opponent for their own reasons), so I would not consider him to be a serious contender for PotUS. I just don't see how he could win a national election.

That being said, I don't consider him a 'sell-out' on the pro-life issues, nor a sleazeball. I hate all politicians on principle, but am unaware of anything he has done to earn my loathing.

[Jesus_lol]

Im surprised Newt is even a potential candidate. The conservatives should be skewering him. anyone interested in family should be, after he said "she isnt young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the president. besides she has cancer" about his first wife, who he then cheated on and divorced while she was undergoing treatment for cancer. then he married his affair, and then cheated on and divorced her for his third wife.

thats about as anti family as you get, supporting gay marriage doesnt even come close.