While other presidents have had affairs, I kind of doubt that most were womanizers to the extent JFK was.

Scotty, asking me why I singled JFK out is a very valid question. The reason I did so was because he has been so hyped up and overrated far beyond that of any other president (even Reagan). Its not just is presidential accomplishments that have been grossly overstated; the myth still persists that JFK was a man of morals and character (witness a recent biography written by Chris Matthews, which the author said was an "uplifting" story).

Max, it's very simple. JFK is cannonized because he died at the height of his notoriety. the same thing happened with Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, etc....

Max, it's very simple. JFK is cannonized because he died at the height of his notoriety. the same thing happened with Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, etc....

Alphanguy, this is so true. It is just such a shame that whenever new evidence comes to light regarding what a scumbag he truly was, he always remains Saint Jack.

Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri voted tonight. These are beauty contests, with no delegates.

Carl, I apologize for my rudeness, but I believe that MO was the only beauty contest of the three.

I'm not saying that I'll vote for Santorum in the primary, but I am really starting to believe that he would be a stronger general election candidate than Romney (though both have a slim chance of defeating Obama). The sad fact of the matter is that presidential elections are merely personal popularity contests (which explains how Bush won twice). To just about every voter, Romney is completely unlikeable, and the liberal media never fails to portray him as cold and calculating. Of course, it doesn't help that he has a history of making stupid statements that can easily be taken out of context. Furthermore, Romney seldom brags about his personal life; he should be constantly pimping the fact that he gives 17% of his income to charity (compared to the 1% Obama gives) and that he stood by his wife during her battles with MS & breast cancer. (Of course, it is very rude for one to brag about oneself, but the Obama folks never fail to emphasize just how "likeable" and how much of a "family man" their candidate is.)

On the other hand, Santorum can present himself as likeable and relateable. He can constantly tout (as he has be doing) his working class roots in western PA. Also, he has a compelling family story (with one child who died two hours after birth and another who is severly disabled). (Apparently, swing voters care more about personal "stories" than a candidate's positions or qualifications. And, of course, Romney's story is a completely boring one.) Furthermore, the base actually likes Santorum, and would actually turn out to vote for him. (Romney is completely despised by the base. If somebody has appeal to independents--like Huntsman--then this wouldn't be much of a problem. However, Romney pretty much appeals to nobody.) Furthermore, because Santorum is not insanely rich, the Democrats can not run their 99% vs. 1% class warfare bullshit campaign if he is the nominee.

In a general election, Santorum's biggest negative would probably be his past homophobic comments. Yet, I doubt that Romney--who has also been trashed as a "homophobe" on this very thread--would do any better in the LGBT community. There's also the problem that Santorum lost his last election by 17 points. However, the huge size of that loss can be attributed to two factors: (1) his opponent was named Bob Casey, Jr. (whose late father was one of the most popular politicans in PA history) and (2) he was running for a thrid term in 2006, which was a huge Democratic wave year. (Romney chose not to run for a second term as MA governor in 2006 because he knew he would lose badly.)

Regardless of whether you hate Santorum even more than Romney, I just have a hard time seeing how anyone can make a case that Romney is the stronger nominee. Over the course of this campaign, Santorum has made far fewer blunders. I am sorry if this analyis offends anyone, but I really think it might be the objective truth.

Edited February 9, 201213 yr by Max

In a general election, Santorum's biggest negative would probably be his past homophobic comments. Yet, I doubt that Romney--who has also been trashed as a "homophobe" on this very thread--would do any better in the LGBT community. There's also the problem that Santorum lost his last election by 17 points. However, the huge size of that loss can be attributed to two factors: (1) his opponent was named Bob Casey, Jr. (whose late father was one of the most popular politicans in PA history) and (2) he was running for a thrid term in 2006, which was a huge Democratic wave year. (Romney chose not to run for a second term as MA governor in 2006 because he knew he would lose badly.)

You can hate gays as much as you want and still get elected most of the time. The biggest problem with Santorum is his intensity on far right issues. He just relishes being in the thick of culture war battles. I think this will frighten many people. It's one of the reasons Pat Buchanan never got any traction.

The biggest problem with Santorum is his intensity on far right issues. He just relishes being in the thick of culture war battles. I think this will frighten many people.

I agree that's potentially a major problem; it's just that Romney seems to have even worse drawbacks. I was amazed that Santorum had the political skill to twice get elected in a Democratic-leaning state like PA while still being in the thick of those culture issues (whereas Romney ran as a liberal in order to win in MA).

Carl, do you believe that Romney would still make a better candidate than Santorum?

Yes, I do. It's not about Romney, it's about Obama. Romney will work for big business and will placate the far right on social issues - he is very extreme on those issues, he's just not as vocal about it (Judy Dushku told a story about how he shamed a woman who had to have an abortion for medical reasons, and that he later told Dushku he was only pretending to be pro-choice to get elected in Massachusetts). Romney is more of a blank slate for voters, and is able to raise tons of money. I'm not sure the Super Pacs would give as much to Santorum.

They are all crooked....every single one of them...from the homophobes to etc..etc...etc...

I understand your point, Carl. (And thank you for answering my question.) I just think that issues of personality and "likeability" play such a huge role in presidential politics, and on these scores Romney fails miserably. For whatever reason, most voters want a president they can "relate to" and "connect with" (and quite a bit of Santorum's personal story can be used for his political advantage).

They are all crooked....every single one of them

Soapsuds, I'd agree with you if you are also referring to Obama as well. Are you?

Edited February 9, 201213 yr by Max

Since you mentioned that Max... I also want to point out that not one single candidate since Eisenhower has won a general election and been BALD. Let's think about that one for a minute.

Since you mentioned that Max... I also want to point out that not one single candidate since Eisenhower has won a general election and been BALD. Let's think about that one for a minute.

This is so true, Alphanguy! And Eisenhower would never have won if he wasn't a WWII hero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Summersby#Relationship_with_Eisenhower

Here is a note of Eisenhow having an affiar. i'll now sit back and wait for the "Well, I'm not believing anyting on Wikipedia" comments to role in. Wonder if he's a scumbag as well?

Carl... here in Missouri the turnout in the urban areas was 3%, and the rest of the state was 7%... and people are really PISSED that the state spent 7 million dollars for all this, and it didn't even count. All these republicans in the rural areas just all vote the straight abortion ticket. That's what this is all about. the RNC totally is aware that there's no chance in hell that Santorum will deliver the IMPORTANT states in a general election, like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

A fellow Missourian. What's up neighbor? IA with you. The news here in STL is reporting how ticked people were to spend that kind of money for a show vote. But, that's Missouri. Our motto: Why Do It The Right Way When We Can Just Screw It Up.

Our motto: Why Do It The Right Way When We Can Just Screw It Up.

MO voters certainly screwed it up when they elected Claire McCaskill to the Senate (even you have been very critical of her).

Here is a note of Eisenhow having an affiar. i'll now sit back and wait for the "Well, I'm not believing anyting on Wikipedia" comments to role in. Wonder if he's a scumbag as well?

That affair was reprehensible. However, there is a difference between having a couple of affairs and being a serial adulterer. Also, I don't seem to recall Ike being worshipped by millions many decades after his presidency ended. (Besides, many liberals often say that Eisenhower is their vision of what an ideal Republican should be, so I am sort of surprised you attacked him.)

Edited February 9, 201213 yr by Max

A fellow Missourian. What's up neighbor? IA with you. The news here in STL is reporting how ticked people were to spend that kind of money for a show vote. But, that's Missouri. Our motto: Why Do It The Right Way When We Can Just Screw It Up.

Yeah... everybody's bitching about it. I live between Kansas City and Sedalia, and it's been reported on alot with the Kansas City Stations as well as the ones in Columbia. They spend 7 million on this crap, and now they want to put a toll on I-70 because they don't have enough money to fix it. PLEASE.

That affair was reprehensible. However, there is a difference between having a couple of affairs and being a serial adulterer. Also, I don't seem to recall Ike being worshipped by millions many decades after his presidency ended. (Besides, many liberals often say that Eisenhower is their vision of what an ideal Republican should be, so I am sort of surprised you attacked him.)

Um, a couple of affairs and being a serial adulterer are one in the same. A couple is not one.

Here is thing with JFK, He has been idolized due to the fact that he died at the height of his popularity and has been glamorized by his Hollywood connections. Im not sure who thinks of the man as a saint tho. Everyone knows of his affairs. They just look past it.

MO voters certainly screwed it up when they elected Claire McCaskill to the Senate (even you have been very critical of her).

That affair was reprehensible. However, there is a difference between having a couple of affairs and being a serial adulterer. Also, I don't seem to recall Ike being worshipped by millions many decades after his presidency ended. (Besides, many liberals often say that Eisenhower is their vision of what an ideal Republican should be, so I am sort of surprised you attacked him.)

And we screwed up even bigger when we sent Roy Blunt to DC. Those of us who know how much of a classic jackass he is are still regretting that one.