maggie2094February 26, 2012

Great piece in NY Mag...

  • That Mitt Romney finds himself so imperiled by Rick Santorum...Rick Santorum!is just the latest in a series of jaw-dropping developments in what has been the most volatile, unpredictable, and just plain wackadoodle Republican-nomination contest ever. Part of the explanation lies in Romneys lameness as a candidate, in Santorums strength, and in the sudden efflorescence of social issues in what was supposed to be an all-economy-all-the-time affair. But even more important have been the seismic changes within the Republican Party.

The transfiguration of the GOP isnt only about ideology, however. It is also about demography and temperament, as the party has grown whiter, less well schooled, more blue-collar, and more hair-curlingly populist. The result has been a party divided along the lines of culture and class: Establishment versus grassroots, secular versus religious, upscale versus downscale, highfalutin versus hoi polloi. And with those divisions have arisen the competing electoral coalitions shirts versus skins, regulars versus red-hots represented by Romney and Santorum, which are now increasingly likely to duke it out all spring.

Only the most mindless of ideologues reject the truism that America would be best served by the presence of two credible governing parties instead of the situation that currently obtains. A Santorum nomination would be seen by many liberals as a scary and retrograde proposition. And no doubt it would make for a wild ride, with enough talk of Satan, abortifacients, and sweater vests to drive any sane man bonkers. But in the long run, it might do a world of good, compelling Republicans to return to their senses and forge ahead into the 21st century. Which is why all people of common sense and goodwill might consider, in the days ahead, adopting a slogan that may strike them as odd, perverse, or even demented: Go, Rick, go.

Here is a link that might be useful: The Lost Party

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Oh sure Notsodumus predicted this in the 5387 canto it was on the Unlearning Channel.

    Bookmark   February 26, 2012 at 9:34AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Believe this quote from FB says it best:

These aren't really Republicans... they're Christian Dominionists who've taken over the Republican Party.

    Bookmark   February 26, 2012 at 10:28AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

In fact, I believe we should rename the party posthaste. This is no longer a politically themed group of persons... it's a segmented sour orange caught in a sudden winter freeze of biblical proportions, pun intended.

This is not at all recognizable as the Republicans that once were.

In any election year we've come to expect a bit of mudslinging as candidates vie for the front of the pack... but this, this is pure insanity.

What we need is to grab the money trail by its end and follow it, to see who benefits most, and why, from the freakishness that's happening all around us. Each candidate is playing to a certain sector they know they can rile with their carefully chosen, speech written words. And the ensuing division and fighting amongst us will keep us all distracted long enough for another huge freight train to hit.

What will it be this time? World War 3? The final tearing apart of our Constitution?

Something is happening behind the great curtain, but only the wizards who handle the puppets know. We need to know, too.

    Bookmark   February 26, 2012 at 11:31AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

If I believed in Conspiracy Theories, I would almost believe that this is a huge one from the extreme right to paint Obama as the Anti-Christ in all ways. And I would make a guess that a bizarre union of Israel supporters have linked up with fundamentalist Evangelicals of the Pat Robertson sort, along with American Catholics, to stomp on our President in any way they can, demonizing him. And yes, these would be Dominionists writ large.

    Bookmark   February 26, 2012 at 11:43AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Here is Santorum today:

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute," he told 'This Week' host George Stephanopoulos. "The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up."

Now of course people of faith can have a role - if he means citizens that have a faith and is not referring to the Pope or a Bishop or some head of a Church that is trying to influence politics/policies.

However, their faith should not unduly influence our politics, our policies, our laws. Certainly Christians would not want us to adopt Sharia law ... yet they feel perfectly ok imposing Christian mandates into the law.

    Bookmark   February 26, 2012 at 11:49AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52 Zone 6

Occasionally, I run across an internet rant - the kind that demands respect......


"Let's review, shall we?

Here we have a political party who believes that while corporations are people, and therefore imbued with unlimited and inalienable rights, women are not - not people and not imbued with the same rights as men or corporations.


Now, these are the same folks who have proclaimed themselves champions of personal liberty here in the United States of America and are opposed to any regulation on business even when the conduct of that business poses a real and immediate threat to the security and welfare to the entire nation, indeed the entire world, but who see nothing wrong with regulating the h*ll out of a uterus. Men have rights. Corporations have rights. Churches have rights. Uteruses have rights. Fetuses have rights. Women have rights only so long as they don't impinge on the previously mentioned rights.

These are the people who claim to revere the concept of personal responsibility, of self determination, of freedom - and supposedly the consequences thereof - except when it comes to a woman's right to decide what is right for herself and her aforementioned uterus. These people believe that any woman who chooses to accept personal responsibility for her own decision, must not be allowed to make that decision if it conflicts with their religious beliefs - even if the woman in question isn't an adherent of their religion.

snip -

These are folks who rage loud and hysterically demand new laws to prevent the bronze age edicts of Middle Eastern religions from being imposed upon the women of America, despite absolutely no evidence in any way shape or form of that happening and Constitutional prohibitions specifically preventing it in the first place, but then vehemently protest and threaten violence when they aren't allowed to impose the medieval misogyny of a religion from another part of the Middle East upon those very same women while they simultaneously denounce those very same Constitutional protections.


These people adamantly reject sexual, marital, and reproductive healthcare recommendations from degreed and accredited American medical experts backed up by literally centuries of scientific advancement and experience, and embrace the palsied iron age godly "wisdom" of an 80-year old holy man in a pointy hat who holds no medical degree, has never entered into any long term sexual relationship let alone marriage and indeed may never have actually had sex with anybody, has never produced children, has never raised a family, lives a privileged and secluded life that has no resemblance to the average American in any way whatsoever, and who claims the moral and ethical high ground despite helming an organization that repeatedly and continually fails to acknowledge or take responsibility for countless heinous acts of systemic abuse of its own children...... snip

more at the link

Here is a link that might be useful: now thats a rant

    Bookmark   February 26, 2012 at 12:18PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Thanks for the link David ... excellent rant !

    Bookmark   February 26, 2012 at 12:40PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

I second Ohiomom's comments.


    Bookmark   February 26, 2012 at 2:04PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Dare I say triple ditto?

Nah, I'll just say I agee, excellent article David.

At the beginning of Obama's presidency there was a great deal of crying "We are going to take our country back!"

I fear that this is their great attempt, I also fear that this is a country now so divided that perhaps it's time for more liberal minded than the average conservative should think SERIOUSLY about the consequences if we go back in time as some of the conservative reps would legislate if they could and as they already have.

And then do something about it. Get vocal. Get organized. Get rid of them.

When somebody has something to sell, they make sure there is a buyer. If nobody is willling to buy, then the product will be made that WILL have sellers.

Conservatives need to let go of the drives they had beginning in the early 80's, revamp, join the new century and become something all who have left the GOP due to regressive wants can be proud to come back to.

I'm not talking about those who left and call themselves "Independents" because the GOP got too "liberal" for them. Or the ones who have ever used the term RINO about other conservatives - which signaled VERY bad and extremely intolerant new and ugly lines of thought to me re: the conservative voter in this country.

I'm talking about Independents who have actually voted for a Democrat running for the office of President since the Carter administration of decades and decades ago, those who tend to straddle the fence on a lot of party issues and are looking for a balance when one party gets too imbalanced and thus, needs the natural correction that *should* take place when an election is lost.

THOSE Independents.

    Bookmark   February 26, 2012 at 4:10PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marshallz10(z9-10 CA)

Go get 'em, libruls. I no longer support Ron Paul because he has sold women out to the social conservatives of the Repugnant Party.

    Bookmark   February 26, 2012 at 8:29PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

He was a fake all along as it that twit son of his!

    Bookmark   February 26, 2012 at 8:54PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

David, that was beyond awesome! Thank you for sharing that link! Now, there was a rant right on target!

I'm still trying to figure out when part of this nation lost the ability to use the brains that grew inside their skulls...

    Bookmark   February 27, 2012 at 3:37AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

David, outstanding rant! I've never heard anyone put the issue better. " Boggles the mind" is certainly correct! As one talking head put it, "we are now a nation in Jonestown and we are scarfing down the Koolaide."

    Bookmark   February 27, 2012 at 1:41PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Finally got around reading the entire link. The rant of the year. THANKS DAVE!

As for Ron Paul. Over the last decade, his voting record is the most rightwing, of all Congress. Says it all.

By no means is he a Libertarian, he is a tenther.

    Bookmark   February 27, 2012 at 1:56PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo

Romney will get a huge percentage of old white male voters and unlike Santorum, Romney will also do reasonable well among women because he has not set his hair on fire with the social issues.
Therefore, while I agree with what Jim Wright has said, I just don't see the social issues will change the political equation very much in an Obama vs. Romney election.
Romney is going to be focusing on the economy and on any missteps that Obama may stumble into between now and November. Trust me, he won't be talking abortion and birth control. It's going to be a reselling of tax cuts to the job creators and austerity for everyone else to balance the budget and pay off the debt.

I fear that if Romney wins, that the Republicans will stymie progress in alternative energy technology, throw out our public education system and cut our social safety net into shreds.
if they win that will be their focus ahead of any social issues that Santorum is ranting about.

    Bookmark   February 28, 2012 at 10:23PM
Sign Up to comment
More Discussions
The U.S. in an Evil Axis, or So He Claims
When does one become a caricature of oneself? Netanyahu:...
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10
The Shocking Finding From the DOJ's Ferguson Report Not Noticed
The Shocking Finding From the DOJ's Ferguson Report...
Oil Rises as Gulf Allies Strike Yemen
Should Yemen be any part of the Nuclear negotiations...
Relevant quotes II
I have noticed that some have referenced this thread...
Indiana has HIV epidemic
Pence orders short-term needle exchange to combat HIV...
Sponsored Products
36" Matthews Duplo Dinamico Bronze Wood Ceiling Fan
Lamps Plus
Boho Wool-Blend Flatweave Rug
$129.99 | zulily
Cast Iron Double-Ended Heart Pull
Signature Hardware
CIOSO Wall-Mounted Wine Bottle Holder by Blomus
$66.59 | Lumens
Mini Round Chrome Mini Pendant with Royal Cut Clear Crystal and Square Canopy
$110.00 | Bellacor
Round Free Standing Soap Dispenser in Resin
LA Baby Folding Play Yard - PY87-CS-504
$109.99 | Hayneedle
Carlisle Oversized Cuddle Lounge in Gray Finish, Patio Furniture
People viewed this after searching for:
© 2015 Houzz Inc. Houzz® The new way to design your home™