Saw Santorum on the Daily Show tonight… He is King of the Dorks. A total wad.
Though being an idiot, he acts as if someone has told him he is quite bright. Perhaps his Mommy and Daddy?
The question is, how come the Democrats can’t beat guys like this?
I bet he could post in the correct forum.
You bet. He wouldn’t dare post in the wrong forum. Might not be virtuous.
The point treis was making is that this appears to be more of either a BBQ Pit rant or an IMHO poll. (Not that we have not had debates regarding the topic of how Democrats “let” Republicans beat them–one of our longer and more excrutiating threads was on just that topic–but the OP does not seem to have the makings of a genuine Great Debate.
Would you care to restate your premise in a way that actually invites debate? Or would you like me to nudge this thread over to a different Forum?
I understood his point. My post included a serious question.
Move it where ever you like.
I think a valid debate question could be raised about how it is that the Democrats can so often lose to candidates who seem so insubstantial as Rick Santorum.
I am not eager to move it; I just want to be sure it gets the kind of attention the OP wanted.
Just for everyone’s information, if you’d like to discuss the Daily Show interview specifically, see this CS thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=327244
I personally hope that some good debating gets going here so that we don’t get moved to to the less-than-cosmic land of IMHO or something.
Not that I have much to say.
Diebold and the PIPA report, would be my guess.
My serious guess would be that the OP is channeling Pauline Kael.
One could debate why Pennsylvanians would continue to support a politician who wants to drastically reduce the amount of information the National Weather Service provides to the public, in order to benefit PA-based Accuweather, whose employees have donated money to his campaign?
Another debate could focus on the effectiveness of dismissing him as stupid, rather than exploring and highlighting his sleaziness.
Whatever you do, don’t even consider the possibility that his views are consistent with a large block of Pennsylvania voters, and that he says things that these voters support.
Because that would just be be, you know…crazy.
“Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh in the west, Philadelphia in the east, and three hunded miles of Alabama in between.” - common statement of friends of mine, some of whom are from that middle section.
But that is an important point: despite being an “East Coast” state, Pennsylvania is heavily blue-collar; despite having two of the largest cities in the country, it also has a huge section of rural population.
Santorum was elected in 1994 on the wave that turned Congress Republican; since that point, he’s only been up for election once- in 2000. Given the power of incumbency, combined with Pennsylvania’s willingness to vote Republican, I’m wondering how it’s a surprise that Santorum is still a Senator.
The problem with exploring and highlighting his sleaziness is that it leads to an endless tu quoque fest because “sleaze” is to “politician” what “bacteria” is to “shit.”
Well, let me see if I can start a debate here:
I had started a thread about a week ago with almost the same title:
Santorum - What is with this hump?.
Tomndebb called me on it, referring me to the Pit where there was a recent discussion. Not a frequenter of the Pit, I was unaware of this. I wasn’t particularly interested in flaming or being flamed by other Dopers, so I dropped it. But recent events have conspired to resurrect this as a valid debate.
Santorum tried to link sex abuse in the Church to Boston’s liberalism
-Does anyone share Santorum’s opinion on this, and are there any statistics that show that pedophilia (in or out of the Church) is greater in blue states?
-Is this an attack on Catholicism?
-And how does this statement now square with Bush’s nomination of John Roberts, educated in the vast liberal wasteland of the People’s Republic of Cambridge? 
plynck
I believe that while he was still a child his parents had him immunized against liberalism. That’s why he smiles all the time.
It may be just my imagination, but it seems to me that he has been getting weirder (by my standards) since 2000. There’s an election coming up next year; we’ll see if he still has that support. I hope not.
I think you meant to say “were consistent with a large block of Pennsylvania voters”, because right now he’s down 16 points to his challenger in the polls and Casey hasn’t said a thing.
Is Rick Santorum all that bright? Evidence indicates that this isn’t the case. However, being a stupid person does not disqualify one from elected office. There are a variety of stupid Senators and Representatives serving now (e.g., Patty Murray).
Santorum, while not the brightest person around, is similar to President Bush – you are either a fanatic for him or a fanatic against him. There is little middle ground. Santorum has many fans in Pennsylvania and around the nation, and these folks support him vigorously. To some, he is the most charismatic politician around. I know some people who worked for him and they are practically in love with him.
Because everyone knows that liberals are elitist snobs that hate America and the unborn and Jesus. Persecuted Christians dare to run out of their bomb shelters and risk their lives to vote in brave people like Rick Santorum who will pay lip service to their beliefs and then smash the unions they belong to, give tax breaks to companies that out source their jobs, cut their healthcare and education but HE IS RIGHT WITH THE LORD and the end of the world is coming anyway so what good are savings and an education?
Zebra, that kind of rhetoric is exactly the sort of thing that causes people to call liberals “elitist snobs.”