GOP Primary Megathread!

[CountDeMoney]

LOL Did you GOPers catch these statements?

"It's not about you. It's not about you," Santorum said at a Tea Party rally, directing his comments at the president. "It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your job. It's about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology."

"

• bviously, he is now forcing people to do things that he believes that they have the right, that they should do," Santorum continued to say about Obama. "The Catholic church has a Theology that says this is wrong, and he's saying no I've got a different, I've got a different -- you may want to call it a theology, you may want to call it secular values, whatever you want to call it, it's a different moral values. And the president of the United States is exercising his values and trumping the values of the church. If you don't want to call it a theology, I'm fine, you can
  have them let me know what they want to call it, but it is a different set of moral values that they are imposing on people who have a constitutional right to have their own values within the church, and that's not a new low. That's a reflection of exactly what ... it is a new low."

That is one nutty nigger right there, man.

But wait, there's more!

Newt Gingrich said Monday a Republican win in November is "a duty of national security," taking his attack on President Barack Obama a step further on the day the country celebrates Presidents Day.

"Defeating Barack Obama becomes, in fact, a duty of national security," Gingrich told a crowd of about 4,000 people on the campus of Oral Roberts University. "Because the fact is, he is incapable of defending the United States."

Gingrich, who frequently refers to Obama as the "the most dangerous president in modern American history," again said the country is at risk "someday in your lifetime of losing an American city" from a terrorist attack.

Lulz.

[11B4V]

  Loons

[CountDeMoney]

I know;  ain't it hilarious?

[Caliga]

What the GOP needs is to fracture into different parties--one of insane Christians and one of everyone else, like the Democrats and Dixiecrats did in 1948.  Let the evangelical Christians have their own little party, let it crash and burn, and then let them come limping back to a major party with religion no longer being an issue (like with segregation and the Dixiecrats).

[CountDeMoney]

Bill Maher summed it all up this week on Real Time, at the 1:41 mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvXLeTOu5r0

[Sheilbh]

That's really interesting, Sheilbh, thank you for posting it. I'll read the full article.

There was a couple of other points that you made that I'm not sure of. 

I don't think governance is inevitably consensus driven - though it should be data driven - because I think governance is about delivering different aims for different political visions.  An example of local politics would be what public transport is for.  Is it a social service or a public utility?  Your perspective on that will change all the sorts of policies that you'd actually want implemented.  Also I think consensus is a cultural value within a political system.  I don't think we really have it in the Anglo-Saxon world.  I'm not sure why, but I think our systems are adversarial, confrontational and about competition.  There is far less emphasis or value on, I think, Northern European style consensus government.  You can think that's unfortunate, but I don't think it's a flaw of our system I think it's a defining feature of our system.  I also think consensus is a bit suspicious.  I think it leads to far more collusion and corruption among elites, but also that it ostracises certain 'unacceptable' views.  I think consensus culture is a part of why much of Northern Europe has quite successful far-right populist parties.  Because consensus by its nature constrains debate, it defines what's allowed.

My other thought is that I wonder if governance and administration's like an implicit check and balance.  Your system makes passing legislation very difficult.  But you embed political appointees throughout the bureaucracy making administrative political changes rather easy.  Over here we've the opposite.  It's easy for the government to pass legislation, but they have to largely act through a professional independent civil service that every minister blames for stymieing reform.

Also on the emotion thing I think voters get it right on a base, gut instinct level.  I can't think of the last presidential candidate who lost their election on an issue of policy rather than personality - but I also think that regardless of who I'd have voted for the public probably got it right in almost all cases.  I think our gut instinct, our ability to connect with a candidate isn't somehow subordinate to a reasoned decision it's just one that happens very quickly.  It's the same sort of thing when you meet someone and you form an opinion of them pretty quickly.  They can change your mind but if your initial response is bad it's difficult to get over that because it's normally right.

*I mean he blames liberals for kiddy-fiddling priests. I just don't get what intellectual somersaults you have to do to get to that position.

It's quite common with conservatives in the Church.  Basically all the child abuse is to do with intellectual and moral relativism and the collapse of absolute values brought in after Vatican II.  I guess no-one told the Christian Brothers.

[Sheilbh]

What the GOP needs is to fracture into different parties--one of insane Christians and one of everyone else, like the Democrats and Dixiecrats did in 1948.  Let the evangelical Christians have their own little party, let it crash and burn, and then let them come limping back to a major party with religion no longer being an issue (like with segregation and the Dixiecrats).

The difference is I don't see religion not being an issue any time soon.  It's not like segregation because the government's not going to ban it and its popularity isn't just going to fade away.

[CountDeMoney]

What the gay Brit said.  Reilgious fundies are called fundies for a reason.  It's fundamental to their thought process.

[Caliga]

I'm sure people said that about Southern segregationists in the 1960s.

I'm not saying it's likely for Christian evangelicals to stop being Christian, but it might be possible to get them to actually understand separation of church and state at some point.

[Phillip V]

Santorum now leading Romney by double-digits nationally.

That's so awesome, just giving the election to Obama this way.  I love it.

It's incredible to me that anyone would vote to Santorum* but I guess that just shows how little I know about the American electorate.

But he doesn't seem to be doing any worse that Romney in head-to-head polls against Obama. Unlike Newt who is 10-15 points behind either of them.


*I mean he blames liberals for kiddy-fiddling priests. I just don't get what intellectual somersaults you have to do to get to that position.

Santorum is still relatively unknown and untarred (by the Romney/Obama machines). Just like previous frontrunners, his "competitiveness" (compared to Romney) in polling against Obama will plummet.

[Gups]

LOL Did you GOPers catch these statements?

"It's not about you. It's not about you," Santorum said at a Tea Party rally, directing his comments at the president. "It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your job. It's about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology."

"

• bviously, he is now forcing people to do things that he believes that they have the right, that they should do," Santorum continued to say about Obama. "The Catholic church has a Theology that says this is wrong, and he's saying no I've got a different, I've got a different -- you may want to call it a theology, you may want to call it secular values, whatever you want to call it, it's a different moral values. And the president of the United States is exercising his values and trumping the values of the church. If you don't want to call it a theology, I'm fine, you can
  have them let me know what they want to call it, but it is a different set of moral values that they are imposing on people who have a constitutional right to have their own values within the church, and that's not a new low. That's a reflection of exactly what ... it is a new low."

That is one nutty nigger right there, man.

What is he talking about? It looks like English but I can't understand it at all.

[Caliga]

It's weird that everyone is acting like Santorum is likely to be the nominee now.  I still think the GOP machinery will eventually figure out a way to destroy the guy.  The party is of course run by people who value power more than ideology.

[Phillip V]

It's weird that everyone is acting like Santorum is likely to be the nominee now.  I still think the GOP machinery will eventually figure out a way to destroy the guy.  The party is of course run by people who value power more than ideology.

People forget the surge/crash examples of Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich (twice).

[11B4V]

LOL Did you GOPers catch these statements?

"It's not about you. It's not about you," Santorum said at a Tea Party rally, directing his comments at the president. "It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your job. It's about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology."

"

• bviously, he is now forcing people to do things that he believes that they have the right, that they should do," Santorum continued to say about Obama. "The Catholic church has a Theology that says this is wrong, and he's saying no I've got a different, I've got a different -- you may want to call it a theology, you may want to call it secular values, whatever you want to call it, it's a different moral values. And the president of the United States is exercising his values and trumping the values of the church. If you don't want to call it a theology, I'm fine, you can
  have them let me know what they want to call it, but it is a different set of moral values that they are imposing on people who have a constitutional right to have their own values within the church, and that's not a new low. That's a reflection of exactly what ... it is a new low."

That is one nutty nigger right there, man.

What is he talking about? It looks like English but I can't understand it at all.

You dont speak in tongues  so it's nothing important.

[Kleves]

What is he talking about? It looks like English but I can't understand it at all.

Specifically, he's talking about the recent "scandal" over contraceptive insurance coverage and the Catholic Church. I am not sure if context make it more intelligible, though.