The Politics Thread

[Soapsuds]

Ha....yeah I can see that in Gingrich...Romney was the rich kid who hid his body with his towel so the guys in the lockeroom wouldnt see his dick...lol..or he was the one who showed it all when he went into the showers..not sure which one he was...lol....Paul...I dont know...not to sure

Santorum just doesn't seem like the manly man type of guy...I have a feeling if a guy went all gay on him he'd like it....lol....

Edited February 17, 2012 by Soapsuds

[Scotty]

Well he does seem to like to wear a lot of sweaters...

[DRW50]

And Michelle Bachmann is Tracy Flick.

[Soapsuds]

I can just imagine Santorum as President. No women in the forces...All gay men get banned from serving our country or walking the good old streets of USA. Men can no longer wear earings in their ears. Adam Lambert must stop wearing makeup...lol..and control his gay patterns.....women cant have babies until they are 50 and so on....lol

Edited February 17, 2012 by Soapsuds

[Scotty]

As Herman Cain would say: “The more toppings a man has on his pizza, I believe the more manly he is. A manly man don’t want it piled high with vegetables! He would call that a sissy pizza.”

[juppiter]

I think Michigan ultimately will vote for Obama, but if you look at the polls Michigan is WAY closer than it should be (in my mind at least) considering the anti-union rhetoric the Republican party has adopted and the right to work law passed in Indiana.

I think what people forget when they look at Michigan is that you have Ann Arbor which is solidly blue, but the Detroit suburbs and especially Western Michigan lean Republican. I think because the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor is like the intellectual link between Michigan and the rest of the US that sometimes gets lost.

Edited February 18, 2012 by juppiter

[Max]

Actually, with Santorum as president, he'd probably appoint a lot of his gay friends as members of his cabinet. And since everybody had to take Obama at his word when he claimed he never heard Jeremiah Wright say anything anti-Semitic or anti-American during the 20 years he attended his church (if somebody doubted Obama's trustworthiness on this issue, they were labeled a "racist"), we must also believe that Santorum has tons of gay friends.

Also, I'm a little puzzled as to the vitriol directed at Santorum, since it has already been established that Romney "hates gays" just as much as the former PA senator. (Since both men are "homophobes," I would think that Democrats would prefer a Santorum nomination since at least he is "progressive" on issues of taxation and "Made in the USA" manufacturing.) It seems that in order to avoid the homophobic label, one must either (1) be a Republican and fully support gay marriage or (2) be a Democrat and hold whatever position he or she damn well pleases on that issue.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Max

[DRW50]

I think they both likely share the same views - one is more vocal about it, one not. That's one of the reasons I am not as upset as I would have likely been even a year ago about the possibility of Santorum getting the nomination - I no longer believe Romney is any more moderate.

[DRW50]

Why is the budget director for W being cited by the media as some econimic expert? No matter how much the media loves Mitch Daniels and insists he would be the ideal President, he didn't run, and his record suggests nothing but econimic failure.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/mitch-daniels-this-is-the-worst-recovery-ever.php?ref=fpb

[Max]

Daniels is hardly loved by the mainstream media. ("Love" is what the media gives to Obama and Christie.) He was the budget director during Bush's first term, and not his second (when the economy crumbled), so it would have been very hard for the Dems to have convinced swing voters that he played a huge role in the 2008 meltdown. And Daniels did not run because his family strongly vetoed the idea. Personally, I think it says a lot about his character, especially when Obama is constantly hyped as some "family man" who always puts their needs first.

I personally LMAO everytime the liberal media spins how "great" our 8.3% unemployment rate is, and that our economy is "roaring" back. While this spin will no doubt be enough to convince naive swing voters to give Obama another four years, critical thinkers know full well that statistics can never be taken at face value. Out of the several hundred-thousand jobs created recently, how many were temp jobs or part-time jobs? (Most of the folks from my former workplace still remain unemployed; those that have found new jobs all have temporary jobs with no benefits.) In additon, the unemployment rate doesn't even count those who have stopped looking for work (because they are so discouraged); thus, Lord only knows what the true rate of umployment is. However, if you turn on the TV, you'd think it was a great time to be unemployed, because a marvelous new job is right around the corner for everyone in the "sizzling" Obama economy.

[DRW50]

Anyone who is repeatedly asked by a lot of the press to run for President is loved.

I'm sure that was a consideration but his being loathed by much of the base must have been a factor too. He even had to start flip flopping around as governor to appease them (his efforts against Planned Parenthood, which went against the supposed "truce" he wanted on social issues). After that he dropped out.

The GOP spent 8 years saying all of our economic problems were Clinton's fault, so I don't know what critical thinking is supposed to be on the economy. Mitch Daniels was in charge at a time when the economy began going into the toilet, so his views seem like Bizarro to me.

Edited February 20, 2012 by CarlD2

[juppiter]

You definitely can't call this recovery "roaring" compared to the early 2000s recovery or the early 1990s recovery or the early 1980s recovery, which had made up more ground by this point. But since this crisis was steeper than any of those I don't think it's appropriate to draw a comparison to the past recessions. Instead we should compare to Europe. Europe tried austerity and is either teetering on the edge of a double dip recession or already in recession, economists aren't sure. The US had the stimulus and is in a better position than Europe.

Obamanomics has not given us a roaring recovery but it did keep us from the debt deflation spiral Europe is experiencing.

[DRW50]

A long article to convince everyone hey, it's great that Mitt opposed the bailout, Republicans hate it too. The problem is inauthenticity, not that Republicans are angry about him opposing the bailout.

http://www.politico....0212/73076.html

Anyway, Santorum's endless crusades and Mitt's endless money supply are tightening things up in Michigan. But does anyone really think Mitt will lose Michigan? The real question is why is this so difficult in the first place?

http://www.wlns.com/...-michigan-polls

Apparently even Mitt is trying to say losing Michigan is no big deal.

http://www.huffingto...ml?ref=politics

And finally, yet another puff piece telling us about how the GOP really, really, really, really want Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie to save the day.

Mitch is getting handwritten letters!

http://www.politico....0212/73070.html

Edited February 21, 2012 by CarlD2

[DRW50]

And here's another media hero, coming to save the day. Is he the new Ross Perot?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/david-walker-stirs-the-pot-114953.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/opinion/sunday/friedman-a-third-voice-for-2012.html?_r=3&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[DRW50]

Once again the media power brokers seem to be making their preference clear. Drudge ran a story on Santorum talking about America and Satan.

http://www.ology.com/politics/drudge-report-brings-down-hammer-santorum-over-satan-comments/02212012

It's interesting to me, because this is clearly seen as a big deal (with Sarah Palin, and her usual inane commentary, being the most vocal Republican to question these attacks), but the media cares little, if at all, about Romney and his religion baptizing the dead.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/02/14/elie_wiesel_to_mitt_romney_tell_mormon_church_to_stop_baptizing_jews_who_died_in_holocaust.html

I can't stand Santorum's views and I have seen him as a very malicious presence on social issues for a long time now, but I am increasingly annoyed at the idea of some big contrast between Santorum and Romney, when Romney really just seems like the exact same person who just speaks out less on social issues. If anything Romney will likely do more against the pet hates of the far right, because he is seen as "moderate", for reasons I have never understood, and will have more ground.

I guess once his big money finishes kicking in he will win Michigan and do well enough in the rest of the states, and we will hear about his toughenss and what a comeback and now the party loves him, and so on.