GOP Primary Megathread!

[Admiral Yi]

What's the deal with delegates - are they obliged to do whatever the guy they are pledged to tells them? I always thought they could do what they wanted once their guy dropped out

Good question.  I would think that if some hand-me-down delegate had ever revolted and voted his conscience it would have shown up on my news radar, which it hasn't.

[fhdz]

How are politics of hate not necessarily distressing, f?

Well, typically those kinds of guys just get largely ignored, or diverse sets of people come out against them - you know, kind of like people do regarding the Westboro Baptist shitfaces. I don't necessarily mind a person being hateful; I DO mind a boatload of people going "you know, there's something to that guy's arguments!"

[Eddie Teach]

I'm still hoping nobody wins the first ballot. 

[fhdz]

Also I can see why Romney doesn't give press conferences very often.  He was asked if he thought that stories of his wealth hurt his campaign.  His response was 'Yes.  Next question.'

You can almost hear the whirring as the Romney 9000 reads its IBM punchcards.

[Sheilbh]

Good question.  I would think that if some hand-me-down delegate had ever revolted and voted his conscience it would have shown up on my news radar, which it hasn't.

I think it varies state by state, so presumably the rules are set by the state GOP?  I know at least some require pledged delegates to vote that way for three rounds of a convention and then they're free to vote their conscience.

[Razgovory]

I think it would be Rand Paul not Ron who'd go for VP.  Having him on the ticket with Romney would make McCain-Palin look like Reagan-Bush.

Maybe, Rand Paul is just starting out.  This very well may be Ron's last run.  Rand Paul can run for President much later.  Ron strikes me as a prophet more then anything else.  He wants to get the message out, which is why he's run for President since the 1980's.  He doesn't actually think he'll be President, and may not even want it.  The President can't do all the things he wants to do.  He wants to make his views mainstream.  Only then can the changes he wants really happen.  And I think he's succeeding. 

Rand Paul may very well be groomed for a run for the Presidency, but not now.  Rand Paul is the end game.  He's the one who will eventually do all the things daddy has been talking about.

[Razgovory]

How are politics of hate not necessarily distressing, f?

Well, typically those kinds of guys just get largely ignored, or diverse sets of people come out against them - you know, kind of like people do regarding the Westboro Baptist shitfaces. I don't necessarily mind a person being hateful; I DO mind a boatload of people going "you know, there's something to that guy's arguments!"

Most of the politics of hate are more subtle then the Westboro types.  They aren't even in the politics of hate.  They are just hate.  Not much politics. "Obama is a welfare thug", and "Obama is the foodstamp President", is the politics of hate.

[Berkut]

I would think the basic stupidity behind Santorum stating that Kennedy's point was about removing the religious from public life when in fact Kennedy's point was almost exactly the opposite would be somewhat distressing, if nothing else.

It does illustrate rather nicely just how radicalized the religious right has become. By any sane measure, the political world today is MORE religiously dominated by the Christian right than it was in the previous generations, yet their faux persecution complex is still going strong. They truly believe that they are under attack because there is resistance to them insisting on more power and control. Not getting what you want is not the same as being attacked.

I don't know if anyone should be alarmed, but I do find the Santorum religious nutjobs alarming in that they appear to be a significant power in their party. Kind of like the rights version of the Michael Moore/MoveOn crazies. Not alarming in and of themselves, but alarming that they have as much power over their party as they do...

[Berkut]

How are politics of hate not necessarily distressing, f?

Well, typically those kinds of guys just get largely ignored, or diverse sets of people come out against them - you know, kind of like people do regarding the Westboro Baptist shitfaces. I don't necessarily mind a person being hateful; I DO mind a boatload of people going "you know, there's something to that guy's arguments!"

Indeed. Santorum is not alarming - stupid religious fundies who think freedom of religion means everyone is free to practice their particular religion are hardly unusual enough to warrant notice, really. What is alarming is when they become actual serious contenders for public office where they get to make decisions that actually have an impact on other people.

[Jacob]

I don't know if anyone should be alarmed, but I do find the Santorum religious nutjobs alarming in that they appear to be a significant power in their party. Kind of like the rights version of the Michael Moore/MoveOn crazies. Not alarming in and of themselves, but alarming that they have as much power over their party as they do...

How much power does Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd have in the Democratic party? Are there any purity tests originating from that potential Democratic candidates have to pass that originate from that crowd?

[Eddie Teach]

By any sane measure, the political world today is MORE religiously dominated by the Christian right than it was in the previous generations, yet their faux persecution complex is still going strong. They truly believe that they are under attack because there is resistance to them insisting on more power and control. Not getting what you want is not the same as being attacked.

It's pretty much been a rearguard action since before the Moral Majority first appeared on the scene. Politicians didn't talk about the religious stuff as much in the 60s and 70s because it was taken for granted.

[CountDeMoney]

How much power does Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd have in the Democratic party? Are there any purity tests originating from that potential Democratic candidates have to pass that originate from that crowd?

You mean, kinda like where you stand on Roe v Wade for the Republicans?

Yes, you have to swear--actually, affirm--that you want to seize all guns.  From everybody.  That's about as close as it gets.

[Ideologue]

You have to swear--actually, affirm

Nice touch.

You also have to apologize for America.

[CountDeMoney]

lulz, John Boehner just blamed gas prices on the President.  And wants to know why we don't have an energy policy.

Oh, that's just rich.

[DGuller]

By any sane measure, the political world today is MORE religiously dominated by the Christian right than it was in the previous generations, yet their faux persecution complex is still going strong. They truly believe that they are under attack because there is resistance to them insisting on more power and control. Not getting what you want is not the same as being attacked.

It's pretty much been a rearguard action since before the Moral Majority first appeared on the scene. Politicians didn't talk about the religious stuff as much in the 60s and 70s because it was taken for granted.

I actually agree.  Social morality is constantly getting more liberal, and has been for multiple decades.  Even though in the last three decades, Republicans dominated the politics, they still couldn't halt the liberalizing advance.  The social conservatives radicalized into a reactionary rebellion precisely because they are on the losing end of the culture war.