Hmm . . . I grok what you’re saying re: “crazy”, but “large block” sure doesn’t seem to relate too much to reality. He won in 2000 by a 53-47% margin, I can’t find the 1994 results on the 'net when he beat Harris Wofford.
IOW, Pennsylvania is a swing state, and saying that Santorum’s views reflect a huge portion of its voters is misleading.
But he did win two elections fair and square, so carry on.
You don’t call 53% a “large block”? You’re confusing the margin of victory with the entirety of those who voted for him, I think.
And a 53-47 win is a really comfortable margin of victory in the political world. That’s just coasting to the finish line, really.
A nitpick, perhaps, but federal spending for education has gone up dramatically under the Bush Administration. If you are going to attack Republicans, at least get your facts straight.
Just so, Zebra! Make Pubbies your paragon of polite discourse, and you can’t go wrong. Why, just look at the calm and reasoned discourse of Mr. Santorum!
The fact that some Republicans are jerks doesn’t mean it’s OK for us to act that way too.
It would, actually, because right now, he ain’t too popular around here.
Given that Santorum is a devout Catholic, I don’t think so. In fact, it seems to me that he’s looking to lay blame elsewhere, instead of the Church, where it belongs. He just picked a rather lousy target, since both senators from Massachusetts are Catholic, and many powerful conservatives were educated at Harvard.
To my DH:
Casey hasn’t done much publicly, but his campaign has been doing a lot of grassroots-level fundraising. They’re now sitting on a warchest of about $1.5 million, and that’s going to increase as the race goes on. The latest Quinnipiac poll has Casey up by 11 points, at 50-39.
Robin
And this somehow justifies putting people like Zebra is describing into power? And who said anything about “liberals”? We’re talking about hard-right religious conservative politicians and whether they live up to certain standards. What makes you think that anyone who criticizes conservatives automatically fits your sterotype of “liberals”? It could be someone who can recognize what a worthy leader should look like.
This whole “elitist snobs” thing is a steaming pile of crap. Government ain’t a dinner party. In social circles, everyone in entitled to equal respect and acceptance. In government, stupid people/ideological extremists should be kept out.
A specious point. The population has also gone up. The spending has not kept pace with the increase in poulation. The amount of $ spent per child has gone down.
How very Bricker of you.
So, Santorum has a big fan base. This does not negate the fact that the man is a dangerous wackjob. That he has supporters suggests to me that there a lot of foolish registered voters in the state of Pennsylvania. I guess we can blame the cheesesteaks and whoopie pies.
You use the “But he has supporters!” line constantly to defend the indefensible. But when you say this, all you do is just remind us that this country is gradually losing its collective mind. It is not a persuasive argument.
No, and I didn’t say it did.
sqweels, that kind of rhetoric is exactly the sort of thing that causes people to call liberals “elitist snobs.”
No, that’s what put him IN the senate.
The Dems, moving to the center and embracing big business and forgetting the little guy doesnt’ help.
I sure as hell wanted to dispell the notion that Santorum has an overwhelming mandate from the voters of Pennsylvania, especially given his current poll numbers.
But conservatives are certainly beseiged here on the Dope nowadays, so I don’t begrudge you sticking to your semantic twist, and I’ll stick to mine.
Sorry for the hijack (Hi, Jack!), but I’m cusious as to what evidence you have that Murray is stupid. She represents me, so I’m understandably interested in the matter.
Then why didn’t you say that instead of saying what you did say? That’s an entirely different proposition. Even if he had only gotten 30% of the vote, he’d still have a “large block” of supporters. If you make a silly, exagerated claim, don’t be surprised when someone calls you on it.
Nice ad hominem, but you’re still wrong.
Out of curiosity where do you live, is it a small rural town or a big metropolitan town? I grew up in a small midwest town. Where I grew up ‘liberal’ is an insult, no different than calling someone a coward or idiot. My mom is a diehard conservative and (not to be a dick) really can’t back up any of her arguments. I don’t even debate politics with her anymore because I feel bad because her understanding of issues (international politics, humanitarian aid, universal healthcare) is so shoddy that she gets embarassed when I win too hard, so I just avoid the issue when it comes up. Its a place where people vote more on identity and values. Read the book what’s the matter with kansas, the author wonders among other things why republicans become more and more radical but still win votes while democrats try harder and harder to become centrist and non-radicalized. He wondered why do poor people vote for republicans who are against things like food stamps, minimum wage increases or universal healthcare. His answer was that people vote on identity politics, not issues that actually affect them. So Santorum’s issues may mean alot here on SD but in the real world I don’t think they matter much to his voters.
Rick Santorum may come across as an ‘idiot’ to some but that just falls right into the propaganda hands of the right. They like to portray ‘liberals’ as unamerican elitists and by calling the heads of the republican party insubstantial or dorks you guys are doing just what the radical right wants you to do. You are giving them ammo to write you off as ‘liberal west/east coasters who think they know whats best and who aren’t in touch with the real americans in the midwest’.
I live in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. It’s a liberal bastion but I’ve also lived in some extremely conservative areas and I know what you mean about the almost pathological loathing of “liberals” in those areas. I think it’s rooted in religious bigotry, lack of education, suspicion of intellectualism and a general zenophobia uniformed and unqualified by any extensive interaction with people much different from them. They actually BELIEVE that “liberals” want to ban the Bible and turn their kids gay. They actually BELIEVE that Jesus hates evolutionists and that scientists are lying. They’re reverting back to a renewed dark age of superstition and religious mania, and I don’t see it getting any better.
I’ll admit that the guy creeps me out a bit with his religiosity, but is he really “insubstantial”? Prehaps he is “differently substanced”, and that’s the problem you have with evluating him. He’s got a Law degree from Dickinson, not the top law school in the country, but recently rated in the top 100. I doubt that he’s an idiot, and maybe his views on taxation and foreign affairs among other things, appeal to a lot of his constituents. He seems to be a states’ rights kind of guy, and although he’s anti-abortion and anti-SSM, he’s said he’s OK with the states deciding things for themselves.
I’m not sticking up for the guy particularly-- I don’t know very much about him. But why do you assume he is of little substance? I’ve seen him speak a few times, and he isn’t a bumbling mumbler like Bush. I’m open to the idea that he has little substance, but explain to why you think that he is.