You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 08, 2016, 02:02:01 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Santorum  (Read 11957 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Santorum
« Reply #150 on: April 05, 2012, 10:52:28 AM »
Don't bet on it. He has enough now that, given which states he won, that the party leadership will push him for VP consideration. Santorum is strong down south where Romney isn't, there will be a push to use him to fill those gaps. Rightly or wrongly. Personally I'd look for a popular moderate type to hedge the moderate republicans like myself but everything I've seen in the last 15 years out of the party makes me think they won't consider that.  Rather than work, consider compromise and listening to reform minded moderates they will continue to let the corporate interests and religious extreme right lead the party by the nose. Why chase a goose you don't have when you got two smaller ones already locked in the shed?

Got to say that at least the party STAYs bought.

My personal observation is that the RNC won't make the same mistake they made in 2008. They picked a VP candidate (Palin) who became an utter distraction from the campaign. From her personal life to the intellectual gaffes, everything about her overshadowed the real issues.

They won't chance that this time, and picking Santorum as a VP would bring the same result. He'd be a distraction.

My guess is they will appeal to the fastest growing segment of voters (i.e. Hispanics) and look to Sen. Marco Rubio from Florida, or Gov. Susana Martinez from NM, both conservative Hispanics.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Santorum
« Reply #151 on: April 05, 2012, 11:04:50 AM »
conservative Hispanics.

Seems like an oxymoron...

Offline Avis habilis

Re: Santorum
« Reply #152 on: April 05, 2012, 11:10:41 AM »
I think it's only the recent ravening nativism/xenophobia that makes it seem that way. There are plenty of business-oriented, anti-regulation, military fan, social conservative Latino people out there.

If Santorum hadn't shot himself in the los ambos pies with that line of bull about making English the official language of Puerto Rico he would go over like gangbusters with part of that demographic.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Santorum
« Reply #153 on: April 05, 2012, 11:11:46 AM »
My personal observation is that the RNC won't make the same mistake they made in 2008. They picked a VP candidate (Palin) who became an utter distraction from the campaign. From her personal life to the intellectual gaffes, everything about her overshadowed the real issues.

They won't chance that this time, and picking Santorum as a VP would bring the same result. He'd be a distraction.

My guess is they will appeal to the fastest growing segment of voters (i.e. Hispanics) and look to Sen. Marco Rubio from Florida, or Gov. Susana Martinez from NM, both conservative Hispanics.

Rubio won't accept it. He's already, and repeatedly, said that. I'm not sure Martinez will accept it either, having said the same thing in at least 1 event I saw on TV if I recall rightly . I think she's the better choice of the two since Rubio has pretty much broken every promise he's made to the voters since he's been elected.


Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Santorum
« Reply #154 on: April 05, 2012, 11:18:26 AM »
Rubio won't accept it. He's already, and repeatedly, said that. I'm not sure Martinez will accept it either, having said the same thing in at least 1 event I saw on TV if I recall rightly . I think she's the better choice of the two since Rubio has pretty much broken every promise he's made to the voters since he's been elected.

Oh, I know his public statements have been that he won't run as VP. But the party leadership still considers him the front-runner, nonetheless.

They could also go with either Gov. Bobby Jindal or Gov. Chris Christie, but either of those choices wouldn't go over as well as the first two I mentioned, not nationally anyway.

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Santorum
« Reply #155 on: April 05, 2012, 11:22:37 AM »
I think it's only the recent ravening nativism/xenophobia that makes it seem that way. There are plenty of business-oriented, anti-regulation, military fan, social conservative Latino people out there.


*nods* Having lived for seven years in a city which had a Latino majority population (San Antonio, TX), I can definitely agree with this.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Santorum
« Reply #156 on: April 05, 2012, 11:29:02 AM »
Oh, I know his public statements have been that he won't run as VP. But the party leadership still considers him the front-runner, nonetheless.

They could also go with either Gov. Bobby Jindal or Gov. Chris Christie, but either of those choices wouldn't go over as well as the first two I mentioned, not nationally anyway.

Christie is possible for the same reasons as Rubio.. Florida has been THE swing state in the last three elections and looks to be again. Jindal I'm not so sure of.

I get the feeling that both Rubio and Martinez are serious about their disclaimers as they strike me as the type to see that they won't get much of a say in things and neither strikes me as a 'passive VP'. That and I seriously doubt that Romney can pull things off and they think the same thing.

Offline Tamhansen

Re: Santorum
« Reply #157 on: April 05, 2012, 11:56:09 AM »
I guess Sanorum's chances hinge on what our good friend mister pota... ehhm newt gingrich does. Basically if Romney doesnt get a win in time for Tampa, Gingrich could cast his lot with Santorum in exchange for the ticket bottom, I really hope for a Santorum/Gingrich run. It's almost as much of a sure loss as Michelle "Watch out for the rise of the Soviet Union" Bachmann was. 

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: Santorum
« Reply #158 on: April 05, 2012, 12:01:18 PM »
Yeah, this is looking like a repeat of the 2004 election, but in reverse. There, it was George W. and the Republicans who were the leading party, but it was still a situation of the opposing team being completely unable to get their act together and present a credible+consistent opponent, giving the incumbent both genuine support and status quo/voter apathy in their favor.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Santorum
« Reply #159 on: April 05, 2012, 12:03:28 PM »
Gingrich won't get the nod from Santorum. They have similar voter pools. You won't get the dynamic you need with that. A Romney/Ginrich ticket would be more likely .. and I don't see that happening. The race has been so divisive I don't see ANY candidate taking the VP nod from one of the rivals.

Offline Cythieus

Re: Santorum
« Reply #160 on: April 06, 2012, 03:22:55 AM »
The thing is that Santorum is scary to moderates, so they won't consider him for the nomination as VP.

Online ShadowFox89

Re: Santorum
« Reply #161 on: April 06, 2012, 03:23:41 AM »
 You say that as if moderates matter.....

Offline Cythieus

Re: Santorum
« Reply #162 on: April 06, 2012, 03:25:53 AM »
We're a country o people in the middle.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Santorum
« Reply #163 on: April 06, 2012, 12:05:56 PM »
You say that as if moderates matter.....

Moderates are why Obama is president. If McCain had a sensible VP choice that appealed to more moderates rather than a religious soccer mom turned Govenor he might have come closer.

Offline BCdan

Re: Santorum
« Reply #164 on: April 06, 2012, 01:25:31 PM »
I was listening to someone say that they are voting for Santorum partially to fight back against the gradual libertarian takeover of the Republican party.  Which was kinda surprising to me.  I consider myself a libertarian and had never seen someone acknowledge the libertarian push to assume more power within the GOP openly like that.  And it is very true, a lot of libertarians know that a third party rising in the US is nearly impossible because of our voting system, so there is a huge push to get more libertarian leaning Republicans in control of the party and to put pressure on the party from the outside through the libertarian party. 

I think this video sums it up I feel some serious Deja Vu posting this here, did I post this before?

CHD - The GOP's Millennial Problem

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Santorum
« Reply #165 on: April 06, 2012, 02:08:28 PM »
My take on the GOP is that there is a 'ruling board' in the party that has been 'in the game' since the Nixon era (folks like Cheney and such) who don't want to move aside to let the younger folk move in to held out and take the party into the next century. I saw a bit of this with my brother's attempt at running for office. The state party was all 'you need to get him to run for state senate/rep/county office.' but he went for higher than that and suddenly it was 'you know he's got no experience in state political circles' and when I pointed out he'd been on of the GOP electoral reps for the last 3 national conventions and the one of the electoral reps for the national election for TWO cycles they brushed that aside.

I also noticed that most of the people that were against him running for office were guys in their late 60s+ and had been 'in game' since I heard the words 'Watergate' on TV as a six year old. They wanted 'sheep-people' not younger new leaders. The idea that they might need to look for 'new core' for the party isn't in their heads. You mention that you could care less about 'social issues' than 'job issues' and the old guys get twitchy. They've banked on the religious right for so long the idea of CHANGING has vanished.

The few genuine 'small/right sized' government thinkers don't stand out when they brush aside social issues as 'not as important'. One of the reasons why the party leadership has failed to see how useful Ron Paul could be in regaining ground with the younger voter and those of us who  don't see a need to regulate what goes on in the bedroom is that they don't want to venture into the waters he's saying they need to.

He's right. And people who prove themselves right tend to not be welcomed by the establishment.

Offline Cythieus

Re: Santorum
« Reply #166 on: April 07, 2012, 01:47:17 AM »
True, if you wanted a libertarian why not support Ron Paul.

Offline Tamhansen

Re: Santorum
« Reply #167 on: April 07, 2012, 06:35:26 AM »
isn't being a libertarian about supporting noone but yourself and yours? :P

But supporting Ron paul is a rather wasted vote isn't it. i mean the chances of him winning are astronomical.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Santorum
« Reply #168 on: April 07, 2012, 08:21:48 AM »
isn't being a libertarian about supporting noone but yourself and yours? :P

But supporting Ron paul is a rather wasted vote isn't it. i mean the chances of him winning are astronomical.

The same could have been said of Truman when Dewey ran against him.  Yet he won. Voting for Ron Paul might not put him in the White House but it shows that there is a growing segment of the GOP who, while fiscally conservative, aren't as tied up over socially conservative issues as the main thread of the party. 

Party leadership has head their head in the sand over the issue of moderates who don't want to legislating the social issues, who are truly worried about the influence of big business and are being tired of being ignored or sneered at.

I'm personally tired of voting for the lesser evil or seeing straw men that any idiot knows won't get elected getting pushed forward. Santorum has a better chance of getting by a train than getting elected. Romney in many ways will be 4 more years of Bush 2.0 where your investments count more than anything else. 

Offline BCdan

Re: Santorum
« Reply #169 on: April 07, 2012, 01:08:32 PM »
Ron Paul doesn't have to win to have an influence.  If he goes to the national convention with a lot of supporters and delegates, he can steer the debate a certain way.  If more libertarians get elected to all levels of government, then they get more control within the GOP.  Its not about the 2012 elections, its about the longer term shift away from authoritarianism to libertarianism. 

Quote
isn't being a libertarian about supporting noone but yourself and yours?

Libertarianism is about the non-aggression principle.  Never using violence, the threat of violence or fraud to make other people do what you want.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Santorum
« Reply #170 on: April 07, 2012, 01:22:49 PM »
Ron Paul doesn't have to win to have an influence.  If he goes to the national convention with a lot of supporters and delegates, he can steer the debate a certain way.  If more libertarians get elected to all levels of government, then they get more control within the GOP.  Its not about the 2012 elections, its about the longer term shift away from authoritarianism to libertarianism. 

Libertarianism is about the non-aggression principle.  Never using violence, the threat of violence or fraud to make other people do what you want.

I hope you're right BCdan.. one of the points of Libertarianism I disagree with is the 'isolationist' attitude they have BUT that is a matter of degrees rather than abosultues.I don't think we should be hiring mercs to do a job in other countries.. I disliked the 'corporate rebuilding' of Iraq and my opinion is that we could have handled Saddam better than outright invasion. Not to mention it distracted from the more important issues in Afganistan. (The Taliban was a threat to the security of Pakistan..and still is. Had we focused on them.. we might not be worried about them getting access to a Nuclear government.) Indian and US intelligence both fear there is a very sympathetic element within Pakistan that is open to the Taliban.

I really would like Ron to kick the party in it's (metaphorical) ass and make them listen to the fact that social issues are costing them too much and that a lot of the Party's future voters are feeling ignored. I, given the party's past behavior, regretfully doubt it.

Offline BCdan

Re: Santorum
« Reply #171 on: April 07, 2012, 01:57:55 PM »
Libertarians are not isolationist, they are non-interventionist.  Isolationism tends to mean complete non-involvement with the rest of the world.  Non-interventionist means no military involvement with the world or 'entangling alliances' with aggressive countries that may attempt to drag us into a war.  We can still have free trade with other countries and defend ourselves directly.  I personally think the US foreign policy has made a lot more problems for us that it has solved, especially during the cold war when a lot of middle eastern dictatorships were propped up in the name of fighting communism, like the Shah of Iran.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Santorum
« Reply #172 on: April 07, 2012, 02:03:24 PM »
Libertarians are not isolationist, they are non-interventionist.  Isolationism tends to mean complete non-involvement with the rest of the world.  Non-interventionist means no military involvement with the world or 'entangling alliances' with aggressive countries that may attempt to drag us into a war.  We can still have free trade with other countries and defend ourselves directly.  I personally think the US foreign policy has made a lot more problems for us that it has solved, especially during the cold war when a lot of middle eastern dictatorships were propped up in the name of fighting communism, like the Shah of Iran.

Agreed on the last bit. There is a LOT of issues that we (and certain European countries) created by the fact that we never went further than 'He is anti-communist.. so we'll back him no matter what.'. If they (the politicians of the time) could have gotten the Ayatollah aimed against the russians.. they would have backed him.

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Santorum
« Reply #173 on: April 10, 2012, 01:30:30 PM »
Aaaaaand.....it didn't even take a month. I love it when I'm right.  :P

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57411949-503544/rick-santorum-ending-bid-for-gop-nomination/


Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Santorum
« Reply #174 on: April 10, 2012, 01:59:15 PM »
Aaaaaand.....it didn't even take a month. I love it when I'm right.  :P

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57411949-503544/rick-santorum-ending-bid-for-gop-nomination/

He's suspending.. not ending.  That means if he and his spin doctors can find leverage with this.. he can rush back in and 'save the day'. The problem is.. he's made some SERIOUS gaffs in the press and that can slow it down. If his staff finds a way to keep Romney under the magic number of delegates..he'll jump back in and leverage his delegates into a VP slot.

Till he actually bows out, or drops dead, he's not gone.