Stupid Santorumisms

[Boyo Jim]

I am glad that Santorum will soon sink into obscurity, or this thread might eventually overtake (in number of posts) the log-running Stupid Republican Idea of the Day. A surprisingly large percentage of the Republican ideas seem to e coming out of Santorum's mouth.

Just in the last couple days:
1. Eliminate all federal and state funding of education.
2. And by the way, America, stop donate money to colleges and universities.
3. The Netherlands kills most of their old people to save money.

Please please puhlease let him beat Romney and be the Republican nominee.

[elucidator]

First, there is nothing so weird that it cannot happen in the world of politics. Any truly democratic system of governance will bear a striking resemblance to herding cats, and as we progress towards equality it will only get more so. If you truly love democracy, you marry her even though you know she is part crazy all of the time, and totally crazy some of the time.

Romney is a cipher, a vacuum in an expensive suit. Nature abhors a vacuum, and so do we. But that only points out his most significant characteristic, he is malleable. If he thought promising to have John Lennon's head carved on Mt. Rushmore would get him elected, he would do it. If the Legislature is sufficiently progressive, and the people in a mostly sane phase, he would be, in Douglas Adam's phrase "mostly harmless".

Rick Santorum is for real, I'm convinced of it. He believes what he says. And he will lead! Even if nobody wants to follow, he will lead. He will do whats right even if 80% of America begs him not to. If Santorum wins, I'm stockpiling ammunition. Don't have a gun, but I figure I can trade the ammo for lap dances and drugs.

Anyway, hoping for Santorum to be nominated is not good risk management. Of course, there's pretty much no chance that such hopes as ours make any difference. But why chance it?

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

1. Eliminate all federal and state funding of education.

Except of course, when it comes time to steal from the state to pay for your kids education in the neighboring state. But we shall not speak of that, oh no.

[anya marie]

I don't get where these people come up with the crap they say. Be catholic, or mormon or protestant, shut the fuck up, and quit using your religion to bludgeon everyone else.

What the fuck is up with the current GOP obsessive need to legislate what women can do with their bodies?

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by anya marie

What the fuck is up with the current GOP obsessive need to legislate what women can do with their bodies?

It used to be the norm. Social conservatives are nothing if not hip with traditions. Add a healthy dose of post hoc ergo propter hoc, and every societal ill can be blamed on having dared to change those traditions.

[Boyo Jim]

I have to wonder, if Santorum actually were to be the nominee and continued to spout off like his is now, could Obama avoid using phrases like "genuinely insane" and "dangerously delusional" in his campaign rhetoric? I think he would want to avoid it, but how else can it be described?

[elucidator]

Georgie! Tirebiter! He's not insane!

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

could Obama avoid using phrases like "genuinely insane" and "dangerously delusional" in his campaign rhetoric?

Sure, and he ought to. His "brand" is that of a smart, calm, serious adult, and he shouldn't do anything to bring that into doubt. All he'd have to do is continue to let Santorum get himself into trouble, and make sure the contrast with himself is clear.

The same is essentially true if Romney is the nominee, too. It's only a matter of degree between Romney and Santorum.

[Jeff Lichtman]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

. . . could Obama avoid using phrases like "genuinely insane" and "dangerously delusional" in his campaign rhetoric?

It would work better for Obama to simply point out what is wrong with Santorum's statements, and leave the invective up to the press. A nut looks even nuttier when he's arguing with someone who's calm and rational.

[digs]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Georgie! Tirebiter! He's not insane!

Ah, George Leroy Tirebiter... (or as a young'un: Porgie Tirebiter... 'He's a spy and a girl-delighter...')

Hey, George has his own Facebook page!

Actually, wasn't it those Firesign Theater guys that pointed out that Thomas Eagleton was the only candidate Certified Not Insane?

[ElvisL1ves]

Ahem. The original George Tirebiter.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

could Obama avoid using phrases like "genuinely insane" and "dangerously delusional" in his campaign rhetoric?

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Sure, and he ought to. His "brand" is that of a smart, calm, serious adult, and he shouldn't do anything to bring that into doubt. All he'd have to do is continue to let Santorum get himself into trouble, and make sure the contrast with himself is clear.

The same is essentially true if Romney is the nominee, too. It's only a matter of degree between Romney and Santorum.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lichtman

It would work better for Obama to simply point out what is wrong with Santorum's statements, and leave the invective up to the press. A nut looks even nuttier when he's arguing with someone who's calm and rational.

I understand that the phrase "There you go again" has been used with reasonable success in past contests.

Frankly, I'm a little ambivalent, considering its provenance.

[ElvisL1ves]

Reagan used the phrase to denigrate something honest and serious being said by a more-engaged opponent, to try to restore viewer focus back to his charming grin. It was not to point to the inanity of Mondale and what he said.

[MacCat]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Reagan used the phrase to denigrate something honest and serious being said by a more-engaged opponent, to try to restore viewer focus back to his charming grin.

If President Obama used it, he could end up owning it.

[Alka Seltzer]

After reading this thread, I'd like to invite Rick Santorum to a dinner party. My seating plan would go: bear, Santorum, cub.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Reagan used the phrase to denigrate something honest and serious being said by a more-engaged opponent, to try to restore viewer focus back to his charming grin. It was not to point to the inanity of Mondale and what he said.

Reagan was sane next to Santorum.

[thelurkinghorror]

Originally Posted by Alka Seltzer

After reading this thread, I'd like to invite Rick Santorum to a dinner party. My seating plan would go: bear, Santorum, cub.

Are you talking about the hairy, rotund, man-eating bear that is very protective of its cub? Or the one that lives in the forest and eats honey and berries?

[mnemosyne]

Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror

Are you talking about the hairy, rotund, man-eating bear that is very protective of its cub? Or the one that lives in the forest and eats honey and berries?

I think both would make the dinner party way more interesting.

ETA: Any way to get it televised on FOX? When politicians get attacked

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Reagan used the phrase to denigrate something honest and serious being said by a more-engaged opponent, to try to restore viewer focus back to his charming grin. It was not to point to the inanity of Mondale and what he said.

Carter, not Mondale. (He used the line in the debate with Mondale too, but the original was in the debate against Carter.) And I don't think it was to "restore viewer focus back to his charming grin." It was part of an exchange where, first, Carter accused Reagan of wanting to make Social Security voluntary as part of a plan to destroy it, Reagan denying that he wanted to make Social Security voluntary and saying that Carter was taking his remarks out of context, Carter bringing up Reagan's early opposition to Medicare, and then Reagan saying "There you go again", in implying that was yet another thing that Carter was taking out of context. Here's the text of the debate and exchange:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debating...tes/cart4.html

[KarlGauss]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

Carter, not Mondale. (He used the line in the debate with Mondale too, but the original was in the debate against Carter.) And I don't think it was to "restore viewer focus back to his charming grin." It was part of an exchange where, first, Carter accused Reagan of wanting to make Social Security voluntary as part of a plan to destroy it, Reagan denying that he wanted to make Social Security voluntary and saying that Carter was taking his remarks out of context, Carter bringing up Reagan's early opposition to Medicare, and then Reagan saying "There you go again", in implying that was yet another thing that Carter was taking out of context. Here's the text of the debate and exchange:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debating...tes/cart4.html

Shame on you for attacking his post with . . . with . . . facts!

[Swords to Plowshares]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Just in the last couple days:
1. Eliminate all federal and state funding of education.
2. And by the way, America, stop donate money to colleges and universities.
3. The Netherlands kills most of their old people to save money.

I haven't been able to find links for numbers 1 (the state funding part) and 2. Do you have them?

[Fear Itself]

Santorum: Separation Of Church And State 'Makes Me Want To Throw Up'

The GOP candidate was responding to comments he made last October. He had said that he "almost threw up" after reading JFK's 1960 speech in which he declared his commitment to the separation of church and state.

Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Santorum: Separation Of Church And State 'Makes Me Want To Throw Up'

He's quite a delicate flower.

[Guinastasia]

Santorum makes me want to throw up. The politician, that is.

[crowmanyclouds]

... Kennedy, he {Santorum} announced, "threw his faith under the bus in that speech." ...

After reading JFK's So(tC)CaS speech, I'm finding it hard not to think that Santorum would be quite comfortable saying,

... I am the Catholic candidate for President. I am not the Republican Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I speak for my church on public matters--and the church speaks for me. ...

instead of Kennedy's,

... I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters--and the church does not speak for me. ...

Somewhere, Charles O'Conor, Al Smith, and JFK are weeping.

CMC fnord!

[FixMyIgnorance]

Apparently Obama is a "snob" for trying to get more people to go to college.

[joebuck20]

Personally I hope that Santorum does get the nomination. So that way, when he inevitably gets his ass handed to him by Obama, the Republicans can't drag out the same bullshit argument that they did in 2008 after McCain lost about how if they only had a sufficiently conservative candidate, they would have won.

Of course, they could always wind up going full batshit next time around, but the upside of that is it would put them on even speedier route to irrelevancy.

[Ann Hedonia]

Originally Posted by FixMyIgnorance

Apparently Obama is a "snob" for trying to get more people to go to college.

To be exact


''President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob," "There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor to try to indoctrinate them. Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image.''


Jeez, the man is positively medieval........................This is a throwback to the time in history where your "place" in the world was determined by God and "ambition" was considered a negative and sinful thing.

[smithsb]

Originally Posted by cjepson

Well, there's this, from a 2008 speech in Florida:

"Satan has his sights on the United States of America... Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that have so deeply rooted in the American tradition."

He's okay with wrath and greed though. Seems to have some problems with envy. People having sex for fun would be in big trouble.

[Sitnam]

Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia

To be exact


''President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob," "There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor to try to indoctrinate them. Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image.''


Jeez, the man is positively medieval........................This is a throwback to the time in history where your "place" in the world was determined by God and "ambition" was considered a negative and sinful thing.

Almost sounds like the practical application of a belief that eating apples from the tree of knowledge was where we went wrong as a species.

[crowmanyclouds]

Originally Posted by joebuck20

Personally I hope that Santorum does get the nomination. So that way, when he inevitably gets his ass handed to him by Obama, the Republicans can't drag out the same bullshit argument that they did in 2008 after McCain lost about how if they only had a sufficiently conservative candidate, they would have won.

Of course, they could always wind up going full batshit next time around, but the upside of that is it would put them on even speedier route to irrelevancy.

[Lord John Whorfin
(Dr. Emilio Lizardo)]
Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy. We-a coming for you and-a you' gold fringed flag next-a time!
[/LJW(DEL)]

CMC fnord!

[howye]

Originally Posted by joebuck20

Personally I hope that Santorum does get the nomination. So that way, when he inevitably gets his ass handed to him by Obama, the Republicans can't drag out the same bullshit argument that they did in 2008 after McCain lost about how if they only had a sufficiently conservative candidate, they would have won.

Of course, they could always wind up going full batshit next time around, but the upside of that is it would put them on even speedier route to irrelevancy.

If they nominate Santorum that IS full batshit. Don't kid yourself. Every decision made by a president Santorum would be made according to his very narrow and conservative religious beliefs. There would be no compromise and no moderation.

[Ann Hedonia]

Originally Posted by Slithy Tove

I agree: when the dickish homophobe isn't just an anti-gay one-note Charlie, but is also against women's reproductive rights, the issue goes deeper than Mr. Santorum's prostate's unacknowledged yearning for tender caress.

It's not his homophobia alone that makes me questions his sexuality, it's what seems to be his squeamish distaste for heterosexual sex.

[purplehorseshoe]

Originally Posted by anya marie

We don't need Satan when we have Rick Santorum.

Get thee behind me, s--- oh, wait. Ew.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

I understand that the phrase "There you go again" has been used with reasonable success in past contests.

Frankly, I'm a little ambivalent, considering its provenance.

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Reagan used the phrase to denigrate something honest and serious being said by a more-engaged opponent, to try to restore viewer focus back to his charming grin. It was not to point to the inanity of Mondale and what he said.

Yes, that's why I'm ambivalent. Had the phrase entered the political landscape respectably and honestly, rather than the way Reagan did it, I'd be all in favor of President Obama using it. Unfortunately, the Reagan connection taints it some.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Santorum makes me want to throw up. The politician, that is.

Well, I hope the other kind at least makes you wrinkle your nose a little and reach for a washcloth...

[Euphonious Polemic]

I'm not sure if this quote from Santorum has been posted here yet...

“The idea that the church should have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical of the objectives and vision of our country,”

Apparently said yesterday on ABC’s "This Week."

I'm open to anyone wanting to defend his statement.

[Jenaroph]

Santorum doesn't use those stupid teleprompters like Romney does.

"I never have to worry about what I say because I will say what's on my heart. I might not say it the most articulate sometimes and I understand that, but I have no teleprompters. I answer questions," Santorum told an audience at a nightclub here. "I answer questions from the public in front of cameras. I answer questions from the press every day. I don't hide. I don't hide from the public. I don't have structured events where only my friends are in front of me to take questions."

Right, and that's how you end up saying things like "blah people." How's that working out for you?

Oh, hey. Looky. This was at CPAC, less than three weeks ago.

Still, Mr. Santorum, using a teleprompter for the high-stakes speech, gave a more focused speech than he typically does on the stump, when he often rambles at length through deep weeds of public policy.

Fuckin' liar.

Another example just like all the other things he's done himself but chides other people for doing. It's OK if he goes to college, or uses teleprompters, or his wife has prenatal testing or considers ending a pregnancy to save her own life; because when THEY do it it's only because it was really really important and they totally searched their own hearts and listened to God before acting; and when other people do it it's because they were being selfish and godless and led astray. Besides, again, it was IMPORTANT.

[Alka Seltzer]

Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror

Are you talking about the hairy, rotund, man-eating bear that is very protective of its cub? Or the one that lives in the forest and eats honey and berries?

The former. Though out of concerns for the bear's diet, seating him between Optimus Prime and Megatron might be a better idea.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Originally Posted by Alka Seltzer

The former. Though out of concerns for the bear's diet, seating him between Optimus Prime and Megatron might be a better idea.

Oh, I thought you meant this kind of bear

[thelurkinghorror]

That's what I meant by the first one, not sure if it was too subtle.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Yes, that's why I'm ambivalent. Had the phrase entered the political landscape respectably and honestly, rather than the way Reagan did it, I'd be all in favor of President Obama using it. Unfortunately, the Reagan connection taints it some.

Obama could say that he is closer to Reagan than Santorum. After all, Reagan raised taxes and wanted to save Social Security.

[Alka Seltzer]

Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror

That's what I meant by the first one, not sure if it was too subtle.

It's confusing if you haven't come across the term before, I clearly need to read up on my slang.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Well, I hope the other kind at least makes you wrinkle your nose a little and reach for a washcloth...

Well, duh. Although there's not much difference between the two of them.

And of course Santorum's afraid of people getting an education. He preys on peoples' ignorance.

[Lamar Mundane]

The cause of the Great Recession was gas prices. People couldn't pay their mortgages because gas was too expensive. Not because they were sold ridiculous mortgages by people who knew they would default, not because Wall Street got the ratings agencies to vastly overrate the value of these mortgages, but because it cost $50 to fill your gas guzzler's tank.

Lansing, Michigan (CNN) - Rick Santorum argued Monday that it was high gas prices, not dubious lending practices or complex Wall Street trades, which torpedoed the housing market in 2008 and brought on the current prolonged economic slump.

The Republican presidential candidate made the claim at a campaign event in Lansing, Michigan while accusing President Barack Obama of blocking the expansion of domestic energy production.

"We need to look at the situation with gas prices today," Santorum said. "We went into a recession in 2008 because of gasoline prices. The bubble burst in housing because people couldn't pay their mortgages because they were looking at $4 a gallon gasoline."

[Fear Itself]

That man must have had a traumatic head injury. Nothing but a brain stem on legs.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

That man must have had a traumatic head injury. Nothing but a brain stem on legs.

He's got santorum for brains.

[andros]

Originally Posted by Lamar Mundane

but because it cost $50 to fill your gas guzzler's tank.

Actually, he has a point here without realizing it.

Just pissing out numbers, but if average per capita gasoline use is around 400 gallons (rough guess from hitting a couple summary sites), then a household of four would crank through 1600 gallons a year. A one-dollar rise in prices gives us an extra $1600 annually, which is really not chump change.

Another handwave suggests that's between one and two mortgage payments. Certainly enough to theoretically cause a default in a household that's already balanced on the edge.

And they were balanced on the fucking edge because of deregulated mortgage and financial markets, artificially cheap credit, and unrestricted predatory lending.

Not to mention a culture of entitlement and a national obsession with the automobile. If our hypothetical family lived closer to where they work instead of the fucking burbs they wouldn't be burning so fucking much gasoline.

[Biggirl]

Originally Posted by andros

Actually, he has a point here without realizing it.

Just pissing out numbers, but if average per capita gasoline use is around 400 gallons (rough guess from hitting a couple summary sites), then a household of four would crank through 1600 gallons a year. A one-dollar rise in prices gives us an extra $1600 annually, which is really not chump change.

Another handwave suggests that's between one and two mortgage payments.

Or half a mortgage payment if you got a mortgage between 10 and 5 years ago.

[Askance]

Originally Posted by andros

Just pissing out numbers, but if average per capita gasoline use is around 400 gallons (rough guess from hitting a couple summary sites), then a household of four would crank through 1600 gallons a year. A one-dollar rise in prices gives us an extra $1600 annually, which is really not chump change.

This assumes that this family is utterly uncognizant of fiscal reality or theory, and uses exactly as much gas regardless of its price. Of course Chicago economic theory (as espoused by the right) demands that they are perfectly informed and rational consumers and so would moderate their consumption in ratio of the price increase, but .. erm ... well ... IT'S ALL OBAMA's SOCIALIST FAULT!