First I’ve heard any suggestion that “faith-based” voters need to consider whether they’re voting for God or Mammon—a point the religious right sorely needs to consider!

http://www.alternet.org/story/153676/the_devil_and_rick_santorum:_dilemmas_of_a_holy_owned_subsidiary?page=entire

Also appreciated the link, within the article, to Ferguson’s Investment theory of party competition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_theory_of_party_competition

Since “faith-based” voters aren’t going to listen to reason, I think it’s helpful to find arguments that speak their language. (Not that they’re going to listen to any arguments, since it’s really all about emotions.)

That’s some interesting reading.

I think that the Republican Party in current times is actually in danger of destroying itself and being replaced with a split-off 3rd party. The rise of the Tea Party came close - all that was needed was for Sarah Palin to front her 3rd party and a large chunk of the Republican membership would have defected right then.

Little aside.  In response to an extreme anti-gay speech Santorum gave a few years ago, someone wrote a definition for “santorum” and posted it on the web.  Since then so many people have gone to it that Google has it first on their list of references.  I think it’s funny and that we should all go to it often so it stays first and drives the Santorum evangelists nuts. 

Occam

My feeling is that as the more extreme members of the Republican party drive its candidates to their positions, the more likely it is that the more rational or moderate party members will be less inclined to work for, donate, or possibly even vote to them.  Or else it will splinter the party so there is more than one candidate to vote for.  All this bodes well for Democratic candidates.

Occam

“Little aside.” Ah, yes.  Nothing like a good laugh over a vulgar situation to bolster one’s morale.  Dan Savage coined the term and the site—brilliant, hilarious and wise defender of human rights. Heard a recent interview in which Savage pointed out that Santorum is not just anti-gay, he’s anti-heterosexual, too.  The “definition” certainly is an apt description of the political spin generated by the dude. By all means, google “santorum” often, and go to the first link (but I think/hope the site is doing pretty well on it’s own)!

I get the feeling that Santorum is another one of those rabid gay-bashers on account of their own struggle with an inner homosexual conflict… ahh the ugly demon of self-hatred.

I’ve always thought that way way way worse than being gay is being an adult who is still conflicted about their own sexuality.

Occam. - 07 January 2012 10:49 AM

My feeling is that as the more extreme members of the Republican party drive its candidates to their positions, the more likely it is that the more rational or moderate party members will be less inclined to work for, donate, or possibly even vote to them.  Or else it will splinter the party so there is more than one candidate to vote for.  All this bodes well for Democratic candidates.

Occam

 
We should be so lucky.

More likely, the further right wing constituency of the Republican party will be split amongst the most extreme candidates, long enough for Romney to sew up the nomination, as I believe Karl Rove and the old guard Republicans have been engineering all along.  Romney will then flip flop (as he does so proficiently) to more moderate stances (though moderate remains a reltaive term with today’s reactionary Republicans).  The Presidential race and much of its coat-tails will still be subject to how the economy is doing.  The Republican party has been steadfast in their obstruction and sabotage of any efforts to positively effect the economy.  It could turn out to be an effectve strategy, as regardless of who is really responsible, the general public tends to hold the sitting President responsible for the economy.  And even if Ron Paul does well in this primary, I don’t believe he will run in a 3rd party.  The Republicans and the media have been taking him more seriously than ever before, though that’s not saying much, and I believe he will be placated. 

I am beginning to think that the biggest hope, even though it leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, is that the religious right may be alienated by Romney being a Mormon, and simply not energized to do much to support him.  However, I suspect that all of the crazy right can be motivated by the sheer demonization of Obama that is beginning to rise again and which will become a veritable tidal wave, if Karl Rove has anything to do with it.  And he does.  The Obama demonizers will not lack for “free speech”, aka $money$.

Occam. - 07 January 2012 10:45 AM

Little aside.  In response to an extreme anti-gay speech Santorum gave a few years ago, someone wrote a definition for “santorum” and posted it on the web.  Since then so many people have gone to it that Google has it first on their list of references.  I think it’s funny and that we should all go to it often so it stays first and drives the Santorum evangelists nuts. 

Occam

I heard that someone recently posted a definition for “romney”.  Seems it is a verb.

TimB - 08 January 2012 10:39 PM

I am beginning to think that the biggest hope, even though it leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, is that the religious right may be alienated by Romney being a Mormon, and simply not energized to do much to support him.  However, I suspect that all of the crazy right can be motivated by the sheer demonization of Obama that is beginning to rise again and which will become a veritable tidal wave, if Karl Rove has anything to do with it.  And he does.  The Obama demonizers will not lack for “free speech”, aka $money$.

Yep, my worry as well.

dougsmith - 14 January 2012 07:12 AM

TimB - 08 January 2012 10:39 PM

I am beginning to think that the biggest hope, even though it leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, is that the religious right may be alienated by Romney being a Mormon, and simply not energized to do much to support him.  However, I suspect that all of the crazy right can be motivated by the sheer demonization of Obama that is beginning to rise again and which will become a veritable tidal wave, if Karl Rove has anything to do with it.  And he does.  The Obama demonizers will not lack for “free speech”, aka $money$.

Yep, my worry as well.

Well, Obama, is a practical man.  I don’t expect that he will discourage Super PACs that support his re-election and he has already collected a large campaign fund from tiny donors like me.  So I am really just more pessimistic about the effect on our “democracy” moreso than about his chances for another term.

I understand that there was a conference this week of evangelical ministers in Texas, and they discussed who they should support.  Mit was way down the list, and they finally agreed that, as a group, they would support Santorum.

Occam