Article by Ferguson —“The Devil and Rick Santorum”
Posted: 07 January 2012 06:08 AM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2011-11-05

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.)

 Signature 

The Muddler (Diane)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 January 2012 10:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1397
Joined  2010-04-22

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.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 January 2012 10:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

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.  LOL

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 January 2012 10:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

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

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 January 2012 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2011-11-05

“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)!

[ Edited: 07 January 2012 01:01 PM by The Muddler ]
 Signature 

The Muddler (Diane)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2012 07:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4350
Joined  2010-08-15

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.

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2012 10:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3186
Joined  2011-11-04
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 $money$.

[ Edited: 08 January 2012 10:44 PM by TimB ]
 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2012 03:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3186
Joined  2011-11-04
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.  LOL

Occam

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

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2012 07:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15395
Joined  2006-02-14
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.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2012 04:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3186
Joined  2011-11-04
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.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2012 07:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

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

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile