Members DRW50 Posted February 23, 2012 Members Share Posted February 23, 2012 http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/five-ways-rick-santorum-blew-it-in-arizona.php?ref=fpa 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members quartermainefan Posted February 23, 2012 Members Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) Rick Santorum is some throwback to Salem, Mass. It is just sickening how 50 years ago the country was afraid of electing a pope, and today republicans insist on it. It shows you just how radically to the right the republican party has become that now they aren't even the tiniest bit ashamed to be invoking Satan into politics--and the sheep eat it up. A hundred years from now people will look back on this time as a very dark period in American culture. This is why I try not to leave Manhattan. Edited February 23, 2012 by quartermainefan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted February 23, 2012 Members Share Posted February 23, 2012 This is the type of headline which annoys me. How is Romney "clawing his way back" when he always had the most money, media support, endorsements...? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/23/us-usa-campaign-debate-idUSTRE81L0AD20120223 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LeClerc Posted February 23, 2012 Members Share Posted February 23, 2012 I can't believe how bad Santorum was in the debate last night. And he was sitting there leaning back in his chair like he was performing brilliantly! The moment that irked me the most was Willard's "Screw the topic, I am going talk about whatever I want" moment at the end (Was it him that did the exact same thing in an earlier debate or was that Newt?). It was a total softball question and a good opportunity for MittBot2012 for humanize himself a bit, and instead he just recited his memorized answer to what he assumed would be a closing-statement type final question. And John King? "Fair enough"!?. Make him answer the question asked or else what the heck is the point? Another sign of things to come from the media where Romney is concerned... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Max Posted February 23, 2012 Members Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) Because Romney's been such a pathetic front-runner, he has lost his lead many times. After last night's debate performance, it looks like he may gain that status back. I honestly do not see how these type of headlines differ from the way past front-runners in both parties (e.g., Bush in 2000, Kerry in 2004, McCain & Hillary in 2008) have been treated by the press after they have come back from some humiliating set-backs. I turned on C-Span this morning, and they were talking about the endless speculation of a brokered GOP convention in the mainstream media (which would obviously be a dream come true for Democrats). Yet, only seven or eight states have voted, and Romney is considerably ahead of all his rivals. On the other hand, I seem to recall virtually zero press speculaiton regarding a brokered Democratic convention in 2008, even though Hillary got almost as many votes as did Obama. Instead, the press advanced a narrative (by April/May) that Obama was the inevitable nominee and that "sore loser" Hillary should drop-out (before every state got a chance to vote) for the good of the party. Edited February 23, 2012 by Max 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted February 23, 2012 Members Share Posted February 23, 2012 There was no speculation on this because Obama spent a lot of time on caucus organization, which Hillary's people skipped. Once he started winning the early states (aside from New Hampshire) and the caucuses, all that was left was the endless media speculation on "PUMAs" and how the "PUMAs" were going to fight all the way to the convention. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Max Posted February 23, 2012 Members Share Posted February 23, 2012 There was quite a bit of talk about the PUMAs, but I seem to recall that it centered around them being "racists" and "sore losers." While there was speculation they would make a scene at the convention, I don't remember the term "brokered convention" being commonly used in the press. On the May 19, 2008 (a date far in advance of the August convention) cover of Time magazine, Obama was already declared the nominee: http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080519,00.html Yet, five states/territories still had not voted, and Hillary won contests in three of them: KY, PR, & SD. Another Time cover on March 17, 2008 indicated that things looked bad for Hillary (despite coming back from the dead yet again): http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080317,00.html After that, Hillary then won PA, IN, & WV (in additon to the other contests I mentioned). I just find it really funny that the mainstream media tried to create this aura of inevitability surrounding Obama's nomination, when--four years later--they are already hyping the "likely" possibility of a brokered RNC because Romney is so "unappealing" to everyone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted February 23, 2012 Members Share Posted February 23, 2012 For one thing, you didn't have Democrats trying their best to launch campaigns to get other people in the race. The Republicans are still trying to get Christie, Daniels, or Jeb Bush in. I thought the media loved the fight between Obama and Hillary. It stretched out for quite a while. They had no problem poring over Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and other echoes of the past. It was mathetmatically impossible for Hillary to be the nominee. She was too lax in the caucus states. She was going on mostly just for pride and because she felt she owed it to people. That situation hasn't arrived yet with Romney. He doesn't have enough of a lead in delegates yet and too many states are still too unpredictable. Unless the media is still calling for a brokered convention for the GOP in May 2012, I don't see the comparison. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Max Posted February 23, 2012 Members Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) If you exclude those idiotic "superdelegates," Obama had 1,828.5 delegates versus Hillary's 1,726.5. (The superdelegates split 478 to 246.5 in favor of Obama.) With 2,208 delegates needed for nomination, those superdelegates (some of whom switched their support to Obama after already pledging to give it to Hillary) could have definately given her the nomination. Also, it was a completely moronic decision to disenfranchise the voters of FL & MI, as well as a very puzzling one (coming from the party that said all votes should be counted in 2000). If legimate contests were held in those two states, Hillary probably would have won them (given that she won every other large state aside from GA and Obama's native IL), and possibly the nomination as well. (By the way, Joe "foot in mouth/plagiarizer" Biden won a grand total of zero delegates.) While it became an uphill battle (but by no means an impossible one) for Hillary, it truly is beyond the realm of possibility for Ron Paul to get nominated this year. Yet, is there anyone outside the usual right-wing media outlets calling for him to drop out? Surely, he's continuing on because of pride and the feeling that he owes it to his supporters. Aside from the Clinton and McCain campaigns, FOX News, The Wall Street Journal, and talk radio, few were willing to talk about this. The general consensus among the mainstream media seemed to be that these topics were "out of bounds." Carl, it's not even May, and the media is already calling for it. I can't recall the media calling for a brokered Democratic back in February 2008 (much less May 2008). Edited February 23, 2012 by Max 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted February 23, 2012 Members Share Posted February 23, 2012 The reason they're calling for it now is because things are up in the air. If, by May, Romney has the nomination on lock, then they won't be calling for it. That's why comparing now to May confused me. They took the votes from Florida and Michigan to punish them for moving their primaries up. That was decided back at a time when Hillary was assumed to be the nominee. I really wonder how many Republicans wish the same had been done to some of their primary states and their grandstanding this past year, especially since many believe the GOP nomination fight has been too long and bloody. We could say if this or that were different, she could have been the nominee, but these things were pretty much set in stone at the time. That makes up a huge part of the media base. I could swear that Charles Gibson brought all that up in an ABC debate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Max Posted February 23, 2012 Members Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) I just did not think this was a very wise move, regardless of whom one supported for that nomination. While it's true that Hillary didn't say "boo" about this when she was the front-runner, I don't know how a party can honestly claim that every vote needs to be counted and then disenfranchise voters in two large states. (That being said, Hillary can't change the rules after the game and say those votes should now count. Aside from indicating that Hillary would likely have won both states' primaries, I'm really not trying to defend her here; rather, the point is that the whole move to strip FL & MI of delegates was hypocritical on the Democrats' part.) It's possible that Gibson asked a question about it during a debate, but I don't recall ABC making the issue a focal point of the campaign. And once Obama disowned Wright and claimed to have never heard him say anything anti-American (in the 20 years he attended his church), the press took Obama's word for it and the story pretty much went away (except in the right-wing media). Edited February 23, 2012 by Max 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members juppiter Posted February 23, 2012 Members Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) The Republicans DID punish Florida this year, it lost half its delegates IIRC. Florida's lawmakers are so dumb for moving it up again. They got nailed last time and they knew they'd get nailed again this time, why move it up to get "more influence" when a. Florida is already ridiculously influential in every election ever and b. losing delegates just makes Florida less influential lol. Seriously though, I'd like to see the primary system reformed. There was a "rotating regional" system thought up a couple years ago by Larry Sabato that had a lot of merit IMO. Edited February 23, 2012 by juppiter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted February 24, 2012 Members Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) I guess the likelihood of this man being the nominee (and very likely President) is at least alleviated by the constant awkward guffaws he gives us. How selfless. I can't get past "the trees are the right height." Edited February 24, 2012 by CarlD2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members quartermainefan Posted February 24, 2012 Members Share Posted February 24, 2012 All the states want to be first, but I think they all would have more influence by staggering them 5 a week regionally for 10 weeks. (CA could be its own region because of the size of the contest). IN 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot at the CA primary in June. Today a state would go into political and party revolt if it had to wait that long to weigh in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members juppiter Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 It is not alleviated at all. We had 8 years of Bush's awkward guffaws and that was enough for a lifetime. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.