GOP Primary Megathread!

[Habbaku]

I must be going crazy, thought I saw Mongers post something about sanitariums. 

Fuck, I'm going to have to start quoting him again.  I saw it, too.

[Martinus]

Nah.

Paul is nuts but has a libertarian appeal that could sway some moderates.
Perry is a racist homophobe but has thia folksy charm Bush jr. had.
Bachmann is a fundie but also a woman.
Gingrich may be despicable but is also quite savvy.

Santorum is a homophobic fundie despicable nutso with no redeeming qualities and a name that is now used to means a mixture of shit and cum. I don't see anyone else mobilizing progressive moderates to vote against him like he would.

[Eddie Teach]

Santorum is a homophobic fundie despicable nutso with no redeeming qualities and a name that is now used to means a mixture of shit and cum. I don't see anyone else mobilizing progressive moderates to vote against him like he would.

His name doesn't mean anything to the average voter, and there's no need for a word for a mixture of shit and cum.

[Neil]

Santorum's nomination would be probably the best thing possible to happen to Obama. 

Attention:  Nobody gives a fuck about what faggots think about any candidate.  You guys are totally irrelevant, and are also utterly corrupt and destructive to society.  A double dose of the last two for you in particular, because of your lawyerism.

[CountDeMoney]

Paul is nuts but has a libertarian appeal that could sway some moderates.
Perry is a racist homophobe but has thia folksy charm Bush jr. had.
Bachmann is a fundie but also a woman.
Gingrich may be despicable but is also quite savvy.

Santorum is a homophobic fundie despicable nutso with no redeeming qualities and a name that is now used to means a mixture of shit and cum. I don't see anyone else mobilizing progressive moderates to vote against him like he would.

Pop quiz:  judging by Martinus' venom, which candidate equated homosexuality with bestiality?

[mongers]

Maybe there's a third party candidate the republicans can get behind ? 

[Sheilbh]

Nah.

I was joking about the quality of candidate.

His name doesn't mean anything to the average voter, and there's no need for a word for a mixture of shit and cum.

That's not what the word means anyway, Marti got that wrong.  He does have a massive Google problem which would make it difficult if the average voter's interest gets piqued and he tries to find out a bit more about him.

[mongers]

Paul is nuts but has a libertarian appeal that could sway some moderates.
Perry is a racist homophobe but has thia folksy charm Bush jr. had.
Bachmann is a fundie but also a woman.
Gingrich may be despicable but is also quite savvy.

Santorum is a homophobic fundie despicable nutso with no redeeming qualities and a name that is now used to means a mixture of shit and cum. I don't see anyone else mobilizing progressive moderates to vote against him like he would.

Pop quiz:  judging by Martinus' venom, which candidate equated homosexuality with bestiality?

The Brain would probably answer Obama.

[Sheilbh]

Maybe there's a third party candidate the republicans can get behind ?

Palin

[CountDeMoney]

That's not what the word means anyway, Marti got that wrong.  He does have a massive Google problem which would make it difficult if the average voter's interest gets piqued and he tries to find out a bit more about him.

We can thank Dan Savage for that.  It's amazing the damage one well-motivated person can do on the internet.

[Admiral Yi]

Had an interesting sequence of phone calls today.  I guess my change of party registration went through too late to affect campaign call lists.

First the Santorum guy calls me, asks me if I *still* plan on supporting Santorum.  I tell him I've never supported Santorum and I don't plan to now.

Then I get a call from a Paul guy.  Also asks me if I *still* plan on supporting Paul.  I ask him what he means by still.  He says I'm on his list as a Paul supporter.  Ok, fair enough.  I say no and bye.

Then the Paul closer calls me.  I like the approach.  It's a new guy, college kid like the first.  He says he would like to discuss with me my reasons for not supporting Paul.  I start off with the gold standard.  He tries to blow it off as no chance of passing Congress anyway.  Which I don't think is very effective salesmanship.  He asks me who I'm supporting, I tell him I'll probably vote for Obama in the general.  He says oh, you're like a anti-war guy?  I so no, I'm actually kind of a hawk.  We talk about deficit reduction.  I say I don't know the details of his TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION dollar deficit reduction plan.  The closer tries to steer me to a web site.

I say to him, you support him, you're trying to sell him, you tell me how he's going to balance the budget.  He comes right back with no bailouts and no Obamacare.  (No hesitation, you can see how this kid got the closer job.)  I reply that ending bailouts doesn't decrease our deficit going forward and Obamacare is revenue-neutral (at least on paper  ).  He tries to launch off on the size of the deficit and the national debt so I wrap it up by telling him I've got food on the stove, I've enjoyed talking with him, I'm not going to caucus for Ron Paul but he should keep on fighting the good fight.

[Eddie Teach]

What made you stop supporting Santorum and Paul? 

[Admiral Yi]

What made you stop supporting Santorum and Paul? 

Fickle.

[sbr]

A local election ad has turned a Republican calling himself the "Original tea Party Candidate" a negative thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb3A_ZbEKUA

I know Oregon is very liberal but I wonder if this will trend nationwide.

[Ed Anger]

Had an interesting sequence of phone calls today.  I guess my change of party registration went through too late to affect campaign call lists.

First the Santorum guy calls me, asks me if I *still* plan on supporting Santorum.  I tell him I've never supported Santorum and I don't plan to now.

Then I get a call from a Paul guy.  Also asks me if I *still* plan on supporting Paul.  I ask him what he means by still.  He says I'm on his list as a Paul supporter.  Ok, fair enough.  I say no and bye.

Then the Paul closer calls me.  I like the approach.  It's a new guy, college kid like the first.  He says he would like to discuss with me my reasons for not supporting Paul.  I start off with the gold standard.  He tries to blow it off as no chance of passing Congress anyway.  Which I don't think is very effective salesmanship.  He asks me who I'm supporting, I tell him I'll probably vote for Obama in the general.  He says oh, you're like a anti-war guy?  I so no, I'm actually kind of a hawk.  We talk about deficit reduction.  I say I don't know the details of his TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION dollar deficit reduction plan.  The closer tries to steer me to a web site.

I say to him, you support him, you're trying to sell him, you tell me how he's going to balance the budget.  He comes right back with no bailouts and no Obamacare.  (No hesitation, you can see how this kid got the closer job.)  I reply that ending bailouts doesn't decrease our deficit going forward and Obamacare is revenue-neutral (at least on paper  ).  He tries to launch off on the size of the deficit and the national debt so I wrap it up by telling him I've got food on the stove, I've enjoyed talking with him, I'm not going to caucus for Ron Paul but he should keep on fighting the good fight.

I'm disappointed you didn't verbally abuse those phone folks.