GOP Primary Megathread!

[Razgovory]

I'm beginning to suspect Grumbler of being Paulite.

Grumbler is an Optimates. He remembers when Sulla stormed Rome.

So does Ron Paul.

[grumbler]

Grumbler is an Optimates. He remembers when Sulla stormed Rome.

Yeah, the idea that I am a Paulite is rather amusing.  I don't foam at the mouth when his name comes up, since I think that his proposals are honestly meant.  The fact that he could honestly think such ideas are good ones says a lot about his grip on reality.  He is Cato the Younger.  I am not Optimate.

With Huntsman out of the race, the only one even remotely Populare left is Romney, and he is a Crassus, not a Drusus.

[Viking]

I'm beginning to suspect Grumbler of being Paulite.

Grumbler is an Optimates. He remembers when Sulla stormed Rome.

yes Querimonius Pedanticus was one of the first men over the walls.

[Sheilbh]

No, just Santorum.  Santrum is a bigger kook than Paul, but with less conviction and more calculation.  He argues that scientists are immoral and must be heavily regulated, and that human rights should not be promoted/protected where they interfere with his stone-age view of that is "natural."  He is smart enough to know that those positions are purely ideological, but promotes them anyway for political gain.

I'm not sure what you mean by purely ideological in terms of it describing Santorum's positions, presumably as opposed to Paul's.

I don't see the distinction.  I think Paul is a conviction libertarian and that Santorum's a conviction Catholic theocon.  One example of him not politically pandering would be the question on SOPA at the debate on Thursday.  Paul gave the answer you'd expect.  Gingrich played it for points by ranting against Hollywood.  Romney shamelessly pandered.  Then Santorum said perhaps SOPA in particular went too far, but then, as you'd expect from someone with his very hardcore views, said the internet can't be a 'free for all' and so on.  It was a very unpopular answer, but I think it was believed and genuine.  I also think his answer on 'a gay son' was sincere and very well meant, similarly his attacks on Romneycare don't seem feigned.  I think he's honest in his views and like Paul has a deeper emotional range than Newt's choice of self-congratulation or rage.

I agree with a lot of the points in this article:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/21/santorum-his-politics-aside-makes-an-appealing-candidate.html

[Razgovory]

I disagree that Paul doesn't pander.  I think those newsletters he published indicated he was willing to pander to some rather unpleasant people.  The difference between Paul and someone like Romney or Gingrich is that Paul panders to advance a few particular goals.  Romney and Gingrich pander to advance themselves.

[CountDeMoney]

I'm beginning to suspect Grumbler of being Paulite.

Only because grumbler supports marijuana legalization.  He gets stoned and claims glaucoma, but it's really near-sightedness.

[KRonn]

Newt is kind of scary, very smart in some ways and ideas, but scary, tempermental. Before this primary season, I used to like his ideas, and kind of wished he'd run. But after seeing him more and finding out more, I'm a lot more reluctant to jump on his band wagon. Some of his fellow Repubs don't like him, to the point that he was voted out of the Speakership, and some are speaking out now.

He might gain more traction though, because he comes out with ideas for significant change. Many voters are so angry with Washington's politics these days, and want change, and may be in the mood to vote for Newt as a guy who speaks volumes about the problems of Washington and his ideas for real change. Similar to Ron Paul for that matter, though Paul seems to go way too far. So Newt may gain more and more traction, that is, if he can keep his head and not scare off too many voters. Polling from SC I saw today showed voters there felt Newt had a better chance vs Obama, though I disagree with that. But he sure can debate, and has such a good grasp on information and his own views that he puts on a strong show in debates.

[Phillip V]

Newt is kind of scary, very smart in some ways and ideas, but scary, tempermental. Before this primary season, I used to like his ideas, and kind of wished he'd run. But after seeing him more and finding out more, I'm a lot more reluctant to jump on his band wagon. Some of his fellow Repubs don't like him, to the point that he was voted out of the Speakership, and some are speaking out now.

He might gain more traction though, because he comes out with ideas for significant change. Many voters are so angry with Washington's politics these days, and want change, and may be in the mood to vote for Newt as a guy who speaks volumes about the problems of Washington and his ideas for real change. Similar to Ron Paul for that matter, though Paul seems to go way too far. So Newt may gain more and more traction, that is, if he can keep his head and not scare off too many voters. Polling from SC I saw today showed voters there felt Newt had a better chance vs Obama, though I disagree with that. But he sure can debate, and has such a good grasp on information and his own views that he puts on a strong show in debates.

Obama also made people hot in their underwear when he spoke in 2008, but that does not get you far once in office...

But people like talkers. It's so easy to seduce women (and men) on the first date without doing any work.

[Ideologue]

Newt is kind of scary, very smart in some ways and ideas, but scary, tempermental. Before this primary season, I used to like his ideas, and kind of wished he'd run. But after seeing him more and finding out more, I'm a lot more reluctant to jump on his band wagon. Some of his fellow Repubs don't like him, to the point that he was voted out of the Speakership, and some are speaking out now.

He might gain more traction though, because he comes out with ideas for significant change. Many voters are so angry with Washington's politics these days, and want change, and may be in the mood to vote for Newt as a guy who speaks volumes about the problems of Washington and his ideas for real change. Similar to Ron Paul for that matter, though Paul seems to go way too far. So Newt may gain more and more traction, that is, if he can keep his head and not scare off too many voters. Polling from SC I saw today showed voters there felt Newt had a better chance vs Obama, though I disagree with that. But he sure can debate, and has such a good grasp on information and his own views that he puts on a strong show in debates.

South Carolinians are fucking retards.  Don't listen to what they have to say about anything.

[Habbaku]

Don't worry, I don't.

[AnchorClanker]

South Carolinians are fucking retards.  Don't listen to what they have to say about anything.

"South Carolina - too small to be a republic, too large to be an insane asylum"

[Caliga]

They make some damn fine pulled pork tho.

[Razgovory]

I'm beginning to suspect Grumbler of being Paulite.

Only because grumbler supports marijuana legalization.  He gets stoned and claims glaucoma, but it's really near-sightedness.

Anyone defending Paul for any reason is suspect.  Paulites must be quickly identified and purged.

[grumbler]

I'm not sure what you mean by purely ideological in terms of it describing Santorum's positions, presumably as opposed to Paul's.

Sorry, I mean to call him a demagogue, as opposed to an ideologue.  I don't mind ideologues per se.

I don't see the distinction.  I think Paul is a conviction libertarian and that Santorum's a conviction Catholic theocon.  One example of him not politically pandering would be the question on SOPA at the debate on Thursday.  Paul gave the answer you'd expect.  Gingrich played it for points by ranting against Hollywood.  Romney shamelessly pandered.  Then Santorum said perhaps SOPA in particular went too far, but then, as you'd expect from someone with his very hardcore views, said the internet can't be a 'free for all' and so on.  It was a very unpopular answer, but I think it was believed and genuine.  I also think his answer on 'a gay son' was sincere and very well meant, similarly his attacks on Romneycare don't seem feigned.  I think he's honest in his views and like Paul has a deeper emotional range than Newt's choice of self-congratulation or rage.
I agree with a lot of the points in this article:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/21/santorum-his-politics-aside-makes-an-appealing-candidate.html 

I don't believe Santorum has hard and fast views.  I believe he shapes his message as a hard-right message because that's what he thinks will sell.  The article points out the extent of his hypocrisy; he accepts an invitation to "The Patriot Dinner" to honor him as "a great American from the Citadel's perspective."  Yet, what has he done that is patriotic?  What sacrifices has he made in the cause of his nation?  Absolutely none, as far as I can tell; he is a career politician who has never done a thing outside of running for and holding office (bar a brief law career in this 20s).  To accept a dinner invitation like that as a "patriot" mocks genuine patriots.

He did change his mind repeatedly on Intelligent Design, considering it science or not-science depending on what the prevailing public mood was.   

I'll grant that his attacks on Romneycare and defense of Bushcare are probably based on the genuine belief that the sooner the poor (unless elderly) die off, the better for everyone.

[grumbler]

Oh, Shelf, and on the article:  that is one weird piece of work.  The author claims that

It turns out that Santorum has a deep connection to the Citadel. A young but important aide named Steven Munoz, who did yeoman's work in Iowa, is a recent graduate. One of the candidate's key endorsers in the state, Gresham Barrett, a former congressman, is an alumnus.

One alumnus friend and one alumnus subordinate don't really make for a "deep connection" to a place.  I have a connection to LSE because one of my degrees was earned there, but it isn't a "deep connection."

The author argues that "you haven't heard anyone accuse him of flip-flopping."  He won his house seat in large part by attacking Doug Walgren for living outside the state most of the year ; he then proceeded to move his family to DC and live there most of the year (admitted that he probably spent a month year in Pennsylvania).  He has changed his mind (flip-flopped) on abortion, intelligent design, ethanol subsidies, synthetic fuels, and earmarks.