[HoosierDaddy]

Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul.

Three of these candidates will lose, massively, to Obama: a president who has presided over a period of recession, despite it's present outlook.

WTF has happened to the Republican Party?

Paul is a libertarian's wet-dream until you get into his background.
Gingrinch is the only Speaker ever sanctioned for his activities and runs on family values despite having terrible family values.
Santorum wants to reignite the Culture Wars more than a hooker wants to be Pretty Woman and was destroyed in a Senate Race in a purple state.
Romney is the most moderate but is a flip-flopping opinion whore who couldn't find true north in his political beliefs if it slapped in the face in the middle of a debate.

What the hell is going on conservatives? I have my own theories and have had discussions with my conservative friends, but I'd love to hear your opinions on the race for the Republican Nomination and the state of the party.

Santorum really is expected to win Michigan over Romney right now. That blows my mind. Has your party gone insane? Do you actually want a chance to win the general?

Edit: Now about American politics in general. More specific stuff in other threads probably.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 07 November 2012 - 07:26 AM

[Aptorius]

It's okay, the republican candidate doesn't have to be very good. They can just pay the media to slander Obama enough that the republican candidate looks like a choirboy. Perhaps this year they can accuse Obama of being a satanist rapist. Or maybe an alien communist werewolf, I'd like that. It doesn't really matter Fox news and CNN will tell us what to think.

Here's Santorum fabricating stories about abortion and euthanasia in Holland.

http://www.youtube.c...e&v=yn-eejMcmuA

This post has been edited by Aptorius: 20 February 2012 - 09:06 AM

[sorrysort]

My personal theory is that establishment conservatives are deliberately avoiding this election because a) the Tea Party still dominates, and they are hoping this lunatic fringe-turned-mainstream will evaporate in time for 2016...practical conservatives just don't want to have to pander to them this cycle and have those talking points on their record; b ) important voters -- most pertinently independents -- see that despite some natural missteps, the Obama administration has been largely effective, forward-thinking, approachable, open-minded, and even genuinely bi-partisan, and that it has been Republican Congress (namely the House, but in many ways the Senate and their supermajority nonsense) that has stalled the recovery...Obama has been a good president; c) the R Party is therefore holding a Hunger Games-type election this year to purge its freaks from the spotlight once and for all...it's just unfortunate that Allen West wasn't sucked into the fray as well, though he might self destruct of his own accord...and of course wily con-man/national treasure Sarah Palin sniffed the trap and ran the other direction, so she may live to grift another day.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 20 February 2012 - 04:26 PM

[sorrysort]

On the other hand I could be totally wrong and these candidates might be the best and the brightest available. For instance, one of the two frontrunners just made a pretty astute observation based on sound historical knowledge, comparing Obama to another figure of note you might have heard of (see if you can guess which one):

“And America sat from 1940 when France fell to December of ’41 and did almost nothing,” he explained. “Why? Because we’re a hopeful people. We think, ‘You know it will get better. Yeah, I mean, he’s a nice guy. It won’t be near as bad as what we think. You know, this will be OK. You know, maybe he’s not the best guy.’ After a while, you found out some things about this guy over in Europe and maybe he’s not so good of a guy after all. But you know what? ‘Why do we need to be involved? We’ll just take care of our own problems, just get our families off to work and our kids off to school and we’ll be OK.’”

[HoosierDaddy]

It's not so much a race to the right as it is a race to the bottom anymore.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 20 February 2012 - 11:00 PM

[amphibian]

Part of the craziness of the Repub primary is that the crazy one or two issue nuts have to be pandered to in order for the primaries to be won, because that's the message the Repubs have put out for years and that's the masses they've attracted. The candidates mostly start out moderate and then get as extreme as needed to win over this section of primary voters and that section, then get back towards the middle in the general election race. It's absolutely idiotic, but somehow that's the way the American presidential competition works.

About seven or eight years ago, I seriously thought Bobby Jindal would be throwing his hat into the ring right about now.

He'd mollywop every last one of these current Repub nominees among the moderates in the general election, but his more conservative base isn't really strong enough nor would he be particularly good at pandering to them to win the primaries. Might be one to watch in 2016 or 2020.

[Obdigore]

Aptorius, on 20 February 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

It's okay, the republican candidate doesn't have to be very good. They can just pay the media to slander Obama enough that the republican candidate looks like a choirboy. Perhaps this year they can accuse Obama of being a satanist rapist. Or maybe an alien communist werewolf, I'd like that. It doesn't really matter Fox news and CNN will tell us what to think.

Here's Santorum fabricating stories about abortion and euthanasia in Holland.

http://www.youtube.c...e&v=yn-eejMcmuA

You missed the part when Santorum said in his book that women should get back in the kitchen and that he wants all women to be barefoot and pregnant, because that is what his bible says.

http://www.realchange.org/santorum.htm

Quote

I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.” - Santorum, night of the Iowa caucuses

"I didn't say black people. I started to say word and kind of went 'bleurgh' and mixed my thoughts. I started to say one word and came up with a different word and moved on." - Santorum, the next day


For the ladies:
“Sadly, the propaganda campaign launched in the 1960s has taken root. The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.” - Santorum, in his 2005 book "It Takes a Family." When asked about it, he blamed his wife for writing that section (even though his name is the only one in the credits.)

Of course, he also thinks that he can 'over rule' the supreme court http://www.addicting...ed-legal-video/

Anyway I agree with Worryworts comments that most of the non-radical Repubs are just letting the crazys run, since a lot of people think that if Obama wins again the tea party will collapse and they wont have to pander to the idiots who enjoy playing political brinkmanship with the economy and everything else.

The only one of the four I can see pulling in middle of the road voters is Paul, since he talks a good game. Problem is that his 'ideas' dont actually work in the real world, you know, like Reaganomics.

[Illuyankas]

Wish I could find that Paulbomb some people composed of all the horrible and racist stuff Ron's said over the years, only one I can think of off the top of my head is the 'fleet footed negros' newsletter.

Also while Romney is the least bad (shame about Huntsman I guess) they're all pretty terrible.

[HoosierDaddy]

Bobby Jindal's presidential hopes died with his Rebuttal to the State of the Union in 09.

It's hard to get to the top, but really easy to fall.

[sorrysort]

One other thing the Tea Party and local yokel conservatives are doing to ruin Republican chances is at the state level...I suppose some "red" states are having a field day, but "purple" states that swung a little TPish locally (for economic reasons) are regretting it bigtime, since the legislative focus has been the same old neo-con anti-union b.s. alongside socially mega-conservative anti-woman bills. I know Wisconsin is largely disgusted with Gov. Scott Walker (I'm not necessarily big on recalls, but if anyone deserves it...); Michigan is feeling what the Republicans mean by small government (http://motherjones.c...pontiac-detroit), so even though Santorum might beat Romney, Obama is double digits ahead of either of them (http://livewire.talk...p-candidates-in); and across the country there's measure after measure after measure attacking basic female personal sovereignty (just one of many many many: http://www.indecisio...gina-probe-bill).

I think a lot of moderates, independents, and even conservatives were looking forward to a time of regrouping and return to sanity after GWB, but the frothing-at-the-mouth base they've been poking with sticks since Reagan (or before, in a post-Vietnam/hippy/feminism/civil rights atmosphere of turmoil) has only grown, within the party at least if not the general population. And they want to go even further right than Bush/Cheney, instead of somewhere more moderate. I guess it's one thing to call Colin Powell or John McCain a RINO, as disrespectful as that might be, but I've seen Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich among others called a RINO numerous times this year. Point being, a time that was supposed to be spent healing has kind of been derailed by fundamentalists, who don't even want to pretend the Republican Party is a "big tent" party. Santorum is riding the crest of that wave; Romney can't ride the crest of the moderate right counter-wave because (rightfully) nobody trusts him; and neither of them can hack it in the general election anyway.

What I'm most curious to see right now is how many debates the Republican candidate will agree to in the general, because they've had such a devastating affect this cycle so far.

[amphibian]

H.D., on 20 February 2012 - 11:55 PM, said:

Bobby Jindal's presidential hopes died with his Rebuttal to the State of the Union in 09.

It's hard to get to the top, but really easy to fall.

Died? Gingrich, Santorum and so on have come back from worse speeches, worse political mistakes and worse morally wrong actions.

One dull speech coming at the height of Obama-fever isn't a Prez-killer. Now, if Jindal still is that bad at giving speeches, then yeah, he's got no shot.

[HoosierDaddy]

But Gingrich and Santorum were national figures such that they had far more exposure to the public to have people make up their minds about them. Jindal had one and if you asked Americans to name something associated with Bobby Jindal, assuming they know who he is, Kenneth from 30 Rock would be right up there with governor of Louisiana.

[sorrysort]

That's true, and you only get one first impression. Jindal also had to put up with being the "great brown hope" in contrast to Obama, and it was unfair to him. Not suggesting that kind of tokenism isn't a problem in both parties (there was plenty of "well-spoken black man" condescension among Dems after Obama's '04 speech, and he'd likely have been a non-entity in '08 if he flubbed it), or that it's the only kind of tokenism, or that it's the primary issue. Just that it's a factor in how fast Jindal's stock plummeted while Gloomy Gus's (Mitch Daniels) even worse rebuttal didn't really damage him. It's harder to bounce back when -- at least in terms of cynical party politics, marketing, and media narrative-building -- some of your momentum comes from being crammed into a symbolic gesture. The parties don't necessarily care about you, and like FOX, one bad night and they will cancel you before you have a chance to build an audience.

[JLV]

This is the first year I'll be old enough to vote. I've always been a proponent of getting involved in the voting process, even if my own say is practically an illusion.

But really? What am I supposed to do here? I don't believe that Obama has been a terrible president. I don't think he's been a good president either, certainly not worthy of a reelection. But what other choice do I have? None of the Republican candidates are even viable to me. I'm already jaded in my first election...

[Illuyankas]

Oh hey, I found the Paulbomb. Look at that.

Quote

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control..

[HoosierDaddy]

Well, first of all don't pull the "nobody good enough to vote for so I'll sit home" crap that people think is a viable reason. Find a candidate that you can live with and vote for them. They won't have all your beliefs but find the one closest to do them. Picking the person who'll do less harm is not an optimistic reason, but it's a pragmatic one.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 21 February 2012 - 03:19 AM

[Illuyankas]

Least bad, while regrettable, is usually the only real option.

[JLV]

I don't like being an adult. This is sobering.

[HoosierDaddy]

Well, you can be like most people and simply vote the way your parents do. I'd encourage you to actually think for yourself, though.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 21 February 2012 - 03:37 AM

[sorrysort]

Here's a few different ways you can decide between non-ideal candidates (which as HD rightly points out, will be everyone, since no candidate will represent 100% of your views):

1) Choose the candidate whose policies will kill fewer innocent people.
2) Choose the candidate who will select supreme court justices that will do the least amount of damage to your nation and the world at large.
3) Choose the candidate who is least likely to force women to be vaginally probed against their wills.
4) Choose the candidate who most believes in evolution.
5) Choose the candidate who is less likely to believe homosexuals will be doomed to eternal hellfire upon death and nevertheless should be subjected to maximum hostility and disgust during the few non-hellfirey years they have on earth before that eternal torture.
6) Choose the candidate who most believes the environment is an actual thing.
7) Choose the candidate who will most likely build a moon colony and then allow it to become the 51st state.

So yah those are just a few of the various ways to think about the decision you are going to have to make. You gotta decide which issues are most important to you. Just don't let it be one issue.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 21 February 2012 - 03:44 AM