|
United States7483 Posts
On March 27 2012 13:27 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 13:01 Whitewing wrote:Fun Rick Santorum quote for you all: ![[image loading]](http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/303372_2518056130545_1827515045_1528236_1702048467_n.jpg) I'm not fond of any of the candidates this year, Republicans or Obama, but please, for the love of Humanity, do not elect this piece of shit. I want Santorum to win. My hope is that Republicans get absolutely destroyed this election so they have to re-evalutate their entire approach to campaigning.
No he didn't actually say it, it's a spoof that combines a bunch of different things he did say and a bunch of his positions. But this more or less is his stance on these things, minus the taliban quote.
Hilariously enough though, a lot of people think he did say it the moment they read this, because this is actually how he comes across.
He's the only candidate that disgusts me enough to actually rage about him. I hate Gingrich and he's a total sleeze, but at least he's not remotely this bad. I can tolerate Romney although I don't like him, and I'm not fond of Obama but I feel he's the best we have this year. Santorum makes me want to puke though.
|
On March 27 2012 14:07 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 13:27 Defacer wrote:On March 27 2012 13:01 Whitewing wrote:Fun Rick Santorum quote for you all: I'm not fond of any of the candidates this year, Republicans or Obama, but please, for the love of Humanity, do not elect this piece of shit. I want Santorum to win. My hope is that Republicans get absolutely destroyed this election so they have to re-evalutate their entire approach to campaigning. No he didn't actually say it, it's a spoof that combines a bunch of different things he did say and a bunch of his positions. But this more or less is his stance on these things, minus the taliban quote.
Thank god. I'm embarassed that I believed it. But I guess I should be embarassed for Santorum -- that a quote that insane is actually believable coming out of his mouth!
|
On March 27 2012 14:11 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 14:07 Whitewing wrote:On March 27 2012 13:27 Defacer wrote:On March 27 2012 13:01 Whitewing wrote:Fun Rick Santorum quote for you all: I'm not fond of any of the candidates this year, Republicans or Obama, but please, for the love of Humanity, do not elect this piece of shit. I want Santorum to win. My hope is that Republicans get absolutely destroyed this election so they have to re-evalutate their entire approach to campaigning. No he didn't actually say it, it's a spoof that combines a bunch of different things he did say and a bunch of his positions. But this more or less is his stance on these things, minus the taliban quote. Thank god. I'm embarassed that I believed it. But I guess I should be embarassed for Santorum -- that a quote that insane is actually believable coming out of his mouth!
Don't feel bad. You can tell it's good satire when it's almost indistinguishable from reality.
He didn't actually say it, but it wouldn't be that surprising if he did. The person who made that graphic has gotten his/her point accross pretty well.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 27 2012 14:17 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 14:11 Defacer wrote:On March 27 2012 14:07 Whitewing wrote:On March 27 2012 13:27 Defacer wrote:On March 27 2012 13:01 Whitewing wrote:Fun Rick Santorum quote for you all: I'm not fond of any of the candidates this year, Republicans or Obama, but please, for the love of Humanity, do not elect this piece of shit. I want Santorum to win. My hope is that Republicans get absolutely destroyed this election so they have to re-evalutate their entire approach to campaigning. No he didn't actually say it, it's a spoof that combines a bunch of different things he did say and a bunch of his positions. But this more or less is his stance on these things, minus the taliban quote. Thank god. I'm embarassed that I believed it. But I guess I should be embarassed for Santorum -- that a quote that insane is actually believable coming out of his mouth! Don't feel bad. You can tell it's good satire when it's almost indistinguishable from reality. He didn't actually say it, but it wouldn't be that surprising if he did. The person who made that graphic has gotten his/her point accross pretty well.
The taliban line and the fake sponsor group were give-aways I thought, and I was hoping people wouldn't take it seriously or I wouldn't have posted it, but in all seriousness, this basically is his position on all of these things.
|
Not to take things off-topic, I've been enjoying reading people's opinions, but I'm curious as to what this even means:
The chicken has come home to roost, and it's wearing a sweater vest.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 27 2012 05:38 liberal wrote:Sources revealing that Romney is a flip-flopper and a manipulative politician are probably redundant now. I don't think there's anyone on either the left or the right who doesn't know what a hypocrite he is. I'd say that awareness accounts for at least 20% of Santorum's popularity. Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 04:01 Doublemint wrote:On March 27 2012 01:19 BioNova wrote:On March 27 2012 00:31 Doublemint wrote:On March 27 2012 00:19 xDaunt wrote:On March 27 2012 00:14 BioNova wrote:On March 27 2012 00:06 xDaunt wrote:On March 26 2012 21:57 Doublemint wrote:
Well of course he does - after all he is a politician and can´t please everybody - especially with his foreign policy(and big chunks of his economic policy). But just as an example of how the seeding out of "bad" candidates is done he works rather well. Ron Paul's biggest problem is that he doesn't communicate his ideas very well. Rather than appearing to be on the cutting of edge of many issues (which he is), he more often than not comes off as a crazy old uncle. I'm interested in seeing how Rand Paul does by comparison. Well, let's hope he inherited the most important Paul trait.... to pander and mean it. So far, it looks like Rand does. Just as an interesting tidbit, a lot of people have openly wondered whether Ron Paul's lack of attacking Romney is a sign that there is an agreement in place to have Rand be Romney's VP. That would actually be a brilliant move to unite the party, as both Pauls are pretty huge figures of the tea party movement. And "conservatives" would have to get behind Romney as well if they want to have a chance against Obama. And common sense might get a chance once again if all this bullshit rhetoric driven by talk radio and the fringes will stop or at least get less attention. Hey, one can dream - right?  I thought you said Paul was of no interest whatsoever? Is that Romneyspeak I detect? I think we can agree that a Ron Paul Presidency is out of the question, let alone a nomination. The only way he can still make a "difference"(if we still have some idealists here :D ), is that he helps Romney who is the most promising candidate for the Reps - even after all his flip flopping. I would say this potential scenario would make the race for the presidency pretty interesting  He's already made a difference, by serving as the lone voice of dissent against many of the modern Republican talking points in televised debates.
The problem is that in those debates, he's turned himself into comedic relief and a tension breaker. Even when he brings up salient points, it's usually on the tail end of a joke so it falls on deaf ears. Perot's issue was somewhat similar, but he still had a lot more traction than Paul does. Some of it is due to the media, but I think Paul takes himself out of serious contention as well, in the debate performances.
|
On March 27 2012 23:14 mordek wrote:Not to take things off-topic, I've been enjoying reading people's opinions, but I'm curious as to what this even means:
My point was that the Republican party has spent the last few decades appealing to the lowest common denominator among social conservatives, essentially exploiting them in order to get elected. Sure, candidates like G. W. Bush actually cared about social conservative issues, but mostly used them as an electoral strategy. For example, proposing a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage is like candy to evangelical voters, but it's more or less impossible to actually enact. None of the hype has really translate into progress (or i guess, anti-progress) in terms of policy for the religious right. National policy on social issues has been trending to the left.
I'm saying that social conservatives within the Republican party are now frustrated, and have realized the powerful position they hold within the party. They're bucking the party establishment in favor of their own candidate. In this case, it's Rick Santorum, who is famous for wearing sweater vests.
|
Ah, I see were you were going with the sweater vest now. It's a sad state and it's why I dislike Santorum. Using evangelical positions (which I feel really aren't the governments business) to gain support seems so sleezy. I know, it's politics 
|
On March 27 2012 14:01 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 13:27 Defacer wrote:
I want Santorum to win.
My hope is that Republicans get absolutely destroyed this election so they have to re-evalutate their entire approach to campaigning. I've been saying that to my friends who are interested in politics for a while now. Santorum's relative success as a candidate is the result of the Republican party's political tactics over the last few decades. They've been appealing to an ever-shrinking base of religious conservatives, playing on their fears and prejudices. It's taken these voters a while to realize that they have actual power within the party, and they're starting to use it. The chicken has come home to roost, and it's wearing a sweater vest.A Santorum nomination, however unlikely, might be enough to shock the party into reinventing itself (honestly, the fact that he's been this successful should be enough). In spite of a massive win in 2010, the Republican party remains fractured, disjointed, and alltogether weak. This isn't just bad for the party. It's bad for everyone. Even if you'd never vote Republican, we all benefit from serious, thoughtful, consistent opposition. In order to have a healthy electoral system, we need 2 strong parties. Right now we barely have one.
Ahaha, great line.
Honestly, I can't see the Republican party continuing as is for much longer. The general stance on social issues, as a result of their panderintg to their evangelical sect, is a set of chains on the party. As time progresses, those social issues they support will put them more and more at odds with the average voter. They will have to change eventually.
|
On March 28 2012 01:20 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 23:14 mordek wrote:Not to take things off-topic, I've been enjoying reading people's opinions, but I'm curious as to what this even means: The chicken has come home to roost, and it's wearing a sweater vest. My point was that the Republican party has spent the last few decades appealing to the lowest common denominator among social conservatives, essentially exploiting them in order to get elected. Sure, candidates like G. W. Bush actually cared about social conservative issues, but mostly used them as an electoral strategy. For example, proposing a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage is like candy to evangelical voters, but it's more or less impossible to actually enact. None of the hype has really translate into progress (or i guess, anti-progress) in terms of policy for the religious right. National policy on social issues has been trending to the left. I'm saying that social conservatives within the Republican party are now frustrated, and have realized the powerful position they hold within the party. They're bucking the party establishment in favor of their own candidate. In this case, it's Rick Santorum, who is famous for wearing sweater vests.
Except the social conservatives totally ignore the fact that they are on the extreme end of things. Moderates such as myself will have no issue voting for Obama over Santorum. Obama has been rather moderate in the White House (for the most part) and has handled himself very well in foriegn relations. They will get trounced, social conservatives are only 20-25% of the general population. They simply WILL NOT carry enough moderates/independants.
|
On March 28 2012 03:40 itkovian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 14:01 Omnipresent wrote:On March 27 2012 13:27 Defacer wrote:
I want Santorum to win.
My hope is that Republicans get absolutely destroyed this election so they have to re-evalutate their entire approach to campaigning. I've been saying that to my friends who are interested in politics for a while now. Santorum's relative success as a candidate is the result of the Republican party's political tactics over the last few decades. They've been appealing to an ever-shrinking base of religious conservatives, playing on their fears and prejudices. It's taken these voters a while to realize that they have actual power within the party, and they're starting to use it. The chicken has come home to roost, and it's wearing a sweater vest.A Santorum nomination, however unlikely, might be enough to shock the party into reinventing itself (honestly, the fact that he's been this successful should be enough). In spite of a massive win in 2010, the Republican party remains fractured, disjointed, and alltogether weak. This isn't just bad for the party. It's bad for everyone. Even if you'd never vote Republican, we all benefit from serious, thoughtful, consistent opposition. In order to have a healthy electoral system, we need 2 strong parties. Right now we barely have one. Ahaha, great line. Honestly, I can't see the Republican party continuing as is for much longer. The general stance on social issues, as a result of their panderintg to their evangelical sect, is a set of chains on the party. As time progresses, those social issues they support will put them more and more at odds with the average voter. They will have to change eventually.
This sounds about right. The only thing I'll say is that the Republican party has been on the losing side of almost every major social issue in the last century: social insurance, healthcare, civil rights, contraception, right to choose, gay rights, etc.
Up until recently (~2006) this has been worked pretty well for them politically. As the conservative party in a 2-party system, they almost have to be reactionary on social issues. They're always going to oppose the latest progressive policies. The reason it's becoming a problem for them now is that the social conservative base is too powerful. They are setting the party's agenda and imposing litmus tests on presidential candidates. It's not enough to be generally pro life anymore. You have to oppose abortion under any circumstance (rape, incest, etc.), and it helps if you oppose contraception as well.
In short, Republicans aren't having trouble because they oppose liberal social policies. They're having trouble because they're making it too central in their campaigns, taking extreme stances, and overreaching in state governments.
On March 28 2012 03:50 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 01:20 Omnipresent wrote:On March 27 2012 23:14 mordek wrote:Not to take things off-topic, I've been enjoying reading people's opinions, but I'm curious as to what this even means: The chicken has come home to roost, and it's wearing a sweater vest. My point was that the Republican party has spent the last few decades appealing to the lowest common denominator among social conservatives, essentially exploiting them in order to get elected. Sure, candidates like G. W. Bush actually cared about social conservative issues, but mostly used them as an electoral strategy. For example, proposing a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage is like candy to evangelical voters, but it's more or less impossible to actually enact. None of the hype has really translate into progress (or i guess, anti-progress) in terms of policy for the religious right. National policy on social issues has been trending to the left. I'm saying that social conservatives within the Republican party are now frustrated, and have realized the powerful position they hold within the party. They're bucking the party establishment in favor of their own candidate. In this case, it's Rick Santorum, who is famous for wearing sweater vests. Except the social conservatives totally ignore the fact that they are on the extreme end of things. Moderates such as myself will have no issue voting for Obama over Santorum. Obama has been rather moderate in the White House (for the most part) and has handled himself very well in foriegn relations. They will get trounced, social conservatives are only 20-25% of the general population. They simply WILL NOT carry enough moderates/independants.
This is true. I'm not trying to argue it's a good thing that religious conservatives have so much power within the party (in fact, quite the opposite). I'm just stating it as a fact and trying to point to a cause.
|
On March 28 2012 01:20 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 23:14 mordek wrote:Not to take things off-topic, I've been enjoying reading people's opinions, but I'm curious as to what this even means: The chicken has come home to roost, and it's wearing a sweater vest. My point was that the Republican party has spent the last few decades appealing to the lowest common denominator among social conservatives, essentially exploiting them in order to get elected. Sure, candidates like G. W. Bush actually cared about social conservative issues, but mostly used them as an electoral strategy. For example, proposing a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage is like candy to evangelical voters, but it's more or less impossible to actually enact. None of the hype has really translate into progress (or i guess, anti-progress) in terms of policy for the religious right. National policy on social issues has been trending to the left. I'm saying that social conservatives within the Republican party are now frustrated, and have realized the powerful position they hold within the party. They're bucking the party establishment in favor of their own candidate. In this case, it's Rick Santorum, who is famous for wearing sweater vests.
Great post.
I think the Republican party desperately needs a massive failure or implosion. Their pandering to the extreme social conservatives in their party seems like a dead end to me. They're turning into a party so polarized and devisive that they just seem impossible to vote for.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 28 2012 04:04 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 01:20 Omnipresent wrote:On March 27 2012 23:14 mordek wrote:Not to take things off-topic, I've been enjoying reading people's opinions, but I'm curious as to what this even means: The chicken has come home to roost, and it's wearing a sweater vest. My point was that the Republican party has spent the last few decades appealing to the lowest common denominator among social conservatives, essentially exploiting them in order to get elected. Sure, candidates like G. W. Bush actually cared about social conservative issues, but mostly used them as an electoral strategy. For example, proposing a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage is like candy to evangelical voters, but it's more or less impossible to actually enact. None of the hype has really translate into progress (or i guess, anti-progress) in terms of policy for the religious right. National policy on social issues has been trending to the left. I'm saying that social conservatives within the Republican party are now frustrated, and have realized the powerful position they hold within the party. They're bucking the party establishment in favor of their own candidate. In this case, it's Rick Santorum, who is famous for wearing sweater vests. Great post. I think the Republican party desperately needs a massive failure or implosion. Their pandering to the extreme social conservatives in their party seems like a dead end to me. They're turning into a party so polarized and devisive that they just seem impossible to vote for.
If this continues on for too much longer, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Republican party die as we know it and have another party step in to fill the role it used to fill. Looking at American history, there have been other parties that were once powerful that have died out, like the Whigs.
|
On March 27 2012 14:17 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 14:11 Defacer wrote:On March 27 2012 14:07 Whitewing wrote:On March 27 2012 13:27 Defacer wrote:On March 27 2012 13:01 Whitewing wrote:Fun Rick Santorum quote for you all: I'm not fond of any of the candidates this year, Republicans or Obama, but please, for the love of Humanity, do not elect this piece of shit. I want Santorum to win. My hope is that Republicans get absolutely destroyed this election so they have to re-evalutate their entire approach to campaigning. No he didn't actually say it, it's a spoof that combines a bunch of different things he did say and a bunch of his positions. But this more or less is his stance on these things, minus the taliban quote. Thank god. I'm embarassed that I believed it. But I guess I should be embarassed for Santorum -- that a quote that insane is actually believable coming out of his mouth! Don't feel bad. You can tell it's good satire when it's almost indistinguishable from reality. He didn't actually say it, but it wouldn't be that surprising if he did. The person who made that graphic has gotten his/her point accross pretty well.
Honestly, I thought it was a legit quote until the part about the Taliban.
|
On March 28 2012 04:07 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 04:04 Defacer wrote:On March 28 2012 01:20 Omnipresent wrote:On March 27 2012 23:14 mordek wrote:Not to take things off-topic, I've been enjoying reading people's opinions, but I'm curious as to what this even means: The chicken has come home to roost, and it's wearing a sweater vest. My point was that the Republican party has spent the last few decades appealing to the lowest common denominator among social conservatives, essentially exploiting them in order to get elected. Sure, candidates like G. W. Bush actually cared about social conservative issues, but mostly used them as an electoral strategy. For example, proposing a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage is like candy to evangelical voters, but it's more or less impossible to actually enact. None of the hype has really translate into progress (or i guess, anti-progress) in terms of policy for the religious right. National policy on social issues has been trending to the left. I'm saying that social conservatives within the Republican party are now frustrated, and have realized the powerful position they hold within the party. They're bucking the party establishment in favor of their own candidate. In this case, it's Rick Santorum, who is famous for wearing sweater vests. Great post. I think the Republican party desperately needs a massive failure or implosion. Their pandering to the extreme social conservatives in their party seems like a dead end to me. They're turning into a party so polarized and devisive that they just seem impossible to vote for. If this continues on for too much longer, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Republican party die as we know it and have another party step in to fill the role it used to fill. Looking at American history, there have been other parties that were once powerful that have died out, like the Whigs.
I agree that the current state of the Republican party is unsustainable, but it's a little soon to start talking seriously about a major 3rd party.
When they time comes, look to Americans Elect as a model. They expect to be on the ballot in all 50 states this fall, and have a couple big names supporting them. Buddy Roemer signed up after getting forced out of the Republican race. The party doesn't have a really clear platform, but that's probably alright. For now, they're running on the idea of direct democracy and the need to eliminate undue influence from special interests.
|
On March 28 2012 04:07 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 04:04 Defacer wrote:On March 28 2012 01:20 Omnipresent wrote:On March 27 2012 23:14 mordek wrote:Not to take things off-topic, I've been enjoying reading people's opinions, but I'm curious as to what this even means: The chicken has come home to roost, and it's wearing a sweater vest. My point was that the Republican party has spent the last few decades appealing to the lowest common denominator among social conservatives, essentially exploiting them in order to get elected. Sure, candidates like G. W. Bush actually cared about social conservative issues, but mostly used them as an electoral strategy. For example, proposing a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage is like candy to evangelical voters, but it's more or less impossible to actually enact. None of the hype has really translate into progress (or i guess, anti-progress) in terms of policy for the religious right. National policy on social issues has been trending to the left. I'm saying that social conservatives within the Republican party are now frustrated, and have realized the powerful position they hold within the party. They're bucking the party establishment in favor of their own candidate. In this case, it's Rick Santorum, who is famous for wearing sweater vests. Great post. I think the Republican party desperately needs a massive failure or implosion. Their pandering to the extreme social conservatives in their party seems like a dead end to me. They're turning into a party so polarized and devisive that they just seem impossible to vote for. If this continues on for too much longer, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Republican party die as we know it and have another party step in to fill the role it used to fill. Looking at American history, there have been other parties that were once powerful that have died out, like the Whigs.
Sort of happened recently in Canada. We have a conversative minority government right now, but the grand majority of l Canadians are lefties, and are split between the old Liberal party and the New Democratic Party.
The New Democratic Party just overtook the Liberals as the de-facto party for the left -- last year?
It's sad that I know more about American politics than Canadian politics
|
On March 28 2012 04:28 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 04:07 Whitewing wrote:On March 28 2012 04:04 Defacer wrote:On March 28 2012 01:20 Omnipresent wrote:On March 27 2012 23:14 mordek wrote:Not to take things off-topic, I've been enjoying reading people's opinions, but I'm curious as to what this even means: The chicken has come home to roost, and it's wearing a sweater vest. My point was that the Republican party has spent the last few decades appealing to the lowest common denominator among social conservatives, essentially exploiting them in order to get elected. Sure, candidates like G. W. Bush actually cared about social conservative issues, but mostly used them as an electoral strategy. For example, proposing a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage is like candy to evangelical voters, but it's more or less impossible to actually enact. None of the hype has really translate into progress (or i guess, anti-progress) in terms of policy for the religious right. National policy on social issues has been trending to the left. I'm saying that social conservatives within the Republican party are now frustrated, and have realized the powerful position they hold within the party. They're bucking the party establishment in favor of their own candidate. In this case, it's Rick Santorum, who is famous for wearing sweater vests. Great post. I think the Republican party desperately needs a massive failure or implosion. Their pandering to the extreme social conservatives in their party seems like a dead end to me. They're turning into a party so polarized and devisive that they just seem impossible to vote for. If this continues on for too much longer, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Republican party die as we know it and have another party step in to fill the role it used to fill. Looking at American history, there have been other parties that were once powerful that have died out, like the Whigs. Sort of happened recently in Canada. We have a conversative minority government right now, but the grand majority of l Canadians are lefties, and are split between the old Liberal party and the New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party just overtook the Liberals as the de-facto party for the left -- last year? It's sad that I know more about American politics than Canadian politics
We have a conservative majority elected by 40% of Canadians who voted: with a Prime Minister who essentially has as much inflence over canadian policy as the combined influence of the U.S. president, plus a majority house and a 60 member senate super majority has over american policy. Never the less it's been said the conservative government is more to the left (on most issues) than Obama's democrat party as the nature of our (basically) three party system tends to promote a centrist position for parties lest they risk obscurity. The nature of either systems are incredibly different as our parties are usually forced to vote along party lines and there is very little in the way of checks and balances in our system (both an unelected senate that rarely uses it's power and an only symbolic head of state who represents the queen) compared to the U.S. system that makes it nearly impossible to do anything without a strong majority (hence the difficulty in simply passing a budget in the U.S.)
I find it unlikely that a 3 party system would work for presidential elections since one member is likely to cut into anothers support rather than a true centrist standing out (for instance if Ron Paul ran it could hurt the republicans thus making a democratic president more likely). As far as house and senate positions, since each member has really no way of being punished for voting against a party rule there really isn't truely a two party system. Members of the house and senate use their party affiliation to help present their point of view, but technically are not bound by their parties policy (where as in Canada if you vote against your party in a non-open vote you are likely to be kicked out of your party and be forced to change parties or be considered an independant)
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 28 2012 04:28 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 04:07 Whitewing wrote:On March 28 2012 04:04 Defacer wrote:On March 28 2012 01:20 Omnipresent wrote:On March 27 2012 23:14 mordek wrote:Not to take things off-topic, I've been enjoying reading people's opinions, but I'm curious as to what this even means: The chicken has come home to roost, and it's wearing a sweater vest. My point was that the Republican party has spent the last few decades appealing to the lowest common denominator among social conservatives, essentially exploiting them in order to get elected. Sure, candidates like G. W. Bush actually cared about social conservative issues, but mostly used them as an electoral strategy. For example, proposing a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage is like candy to evangelical voters, but it's more or less impossible to actually enact. None of the hype has really translate into progress (or i guess, anti-progress) in terms of policy for the religious right. National policy on social issues has been trending to the left. I'm saying that social conservatives within the Republican party are now frustrated, and have realized the powerful position they hold within the party. They're bucking the party establishment in favor of their own candidate. In this case, it's Rick Santorum, who is famous for wearing sweater vests. Great post. I think the Republican party desperately needs a massive failure or implosion. Their pandering to the extreme social conservatives in their party seems like a dead end to me. They're turning into a party so polarized and devisive that they just seem impossible to vote for. If this continues on for too much longer, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Republican party die as we know it and have another party step in to fill the role it used to fill. Looking at American history, there have been other parties that were once powerful that have died out, like the Whigs. Sort of happened recently in Canada. We have a conversative minority government right now, but the grand majority of l Canadians are lefties, and are split between the old Liberal party and the New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party just overtook the Liberals as the de-facto party for the left -- last year? It's sad that I know more about American politics than Canadian politics
To be fair, Canadians don't try to police the rest of the world, so I can imagine most people in other countries pay a lot of attention to American politics too.
|
On March 28 2012 04:01 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 03:40 itkovian wrote:On March 27 2012 14:01 Omnipresent wrote:On March 27 2012 13:27 Defacer wrote:
I want Santorum to win.
My hope is that Republicans get absolutely destroyed this election so they have to re-evalutate their entire approach to campaigning. I've been saying that to my friends who are interested in politics for a while now. Santorum's relative success as a candidate is the result of the Republican party's political tactics over the last few decades. They've been appealing to an ever-shrinking base of religious conservatives, playing on their fears and prejudices. It's taken these voters a while to realize that they have actual power within the party, and they're starting to use it. The chicken has come home to roost, and it's wearing a sweater vest.A Santorum nomination, however unlikely, might be enough to shock the party into reinventing itself (honestly, the fact that he's been this successful should be enough). In spite of a massive win in 2010, the Republican party remains fractured, disjointed, and alltogether weak. This isn't just bad for the party. It's bad for everyone. Even if you'd never vote Republican, we all benefit from serious, thoughtful, consistent opposition. In order to have a healthy electoral system, we need 2 strong parties. Right now we barely have one. Ahaha, great line. Honestly, I can't see the Republican party continuing as is for much longer. The general stance on social issues, as a result of their panderintg to their evangelical sect, is a set of chains on the party. As time progresses, those social issues they support will put them more and more at odds with the average voter. They will have to change eventually. This sounds about right. The only thing I'll say is that the Republican party has been on the losing side of almost every major social issue in the last century: social insurance, healthcare, civil rights, contraception, right to choose, gay rights, etc. Up until recently (~2006) this has been worked pretty well for them politically. As the conservative party in a 2-party system, they almost have to be reactionary on social issues. They're always going to oppose the latest progressive policies. The reason it's becoming a problem for them now is that the social conservative base is too powerful. They are setting the party's agenda and imposing litmus tests on presidential candidates. It's not enough to be generally pro life anymore. You have to oppose abortion under any circumstance (rape, incest, etc.), and it helps if you oppose contraception as well. In short, Republicans aren't having trouble because they oppose liberal social policies. They're having trouble because they're making it too central in their campaigns, taking extreme stances, and overreaching in state governments. Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 03:50 BluePanther wrote:On March 28 2012 01:20 Omnipresent wrote:On March 27 2012 23:14 mordek wrote:Not to take things off-topic, I've been enjoying reading people's opinions, but I'm curious as to what this even means: The chicken has come home to roost, and it's wearing a sweater vest. My point was that the Republican party has spent the last few decades appealing to the lowest common denominator among social conservatives, essentially exploiting them in order to get elected. Sure, candidates like G. W. Bush actually cared about social conservative issues, but mostly used them as an electoral strategy. For example, proposing a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage is like candy to evangelical voters, but it's more or less impossible to actually enact. None of the hype has really translate into progress (or i guess, anti-progress) in terms of policy for the religious right. National policy on social issues has been trending to the left. I'm saying that social conservatives within the Republican party are now frustrated, and have realized the powerful position they hold within the party. They're bucking the party establishment in favor of their own candidate. In this case, it's Rick Santorum, who is famous for wearing sweater vests. Except the social conservatives totally ignore the fact that they are on the extreme end of things. Moderates such as myself will have no issue voting for Obama over Santorum. Obama has been rather moderate in the White House (for the most part) and has handled himself very well in foriegn relations. They will get trounced, social conservatives are only 20-25% of the general population. They simply WILL NOT carry enough moderates/independants. This is true. I'm not trying to argue it's a good thing that religious conservatives have so much power within the party (in fact, quite the opposite). I'm just stating it as a fact and trying to point to a cause.
Also, just some insight... I work part-time in the campaign headquarters of a rather prominent Republican. The new generation of Republican candidates (such as myself, eventually) are far more socially liberal that the current generation. It will be interesting to see how this power struggle plays itself out when that tipping point comes (and it will).
|
Romney's the only one with a shot at the presidency, and it's a slim chance at that. That being said, I'd take any candidate other than Romney for the Republican nomination to ensure Obama's re-election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
