Santorum's problem is that his base cares less about gay people, abortion and other conservative social issues when they do not have a job.
If InSaneTorum and Noot don't have the support of the financial sector (and Noot's 2nd attempt at an election organization is known to suck, does the other hater even have an organization?), then they have no chance.
Wall St $100Ms are going both to Willard Gecko and Barry.
It's NBC.
They care less, but they still care. If Santorum gets a platform (i.e. coverage) to talk about his economic plan and it's well thought out, he could sway base votes his way.
Romney has withstood the ABR candidates to this point, and I think he'll outlast Santorum too...but Santorum is peaking at the right time and he's probably the most formidable. I think this is especially true if Newt stays in the race and continues pounding away at Romney.
InSaneTorum doesn't have an economic vision already? It's probably as sociopathic as the rest of his ideas.
Too busy, just like his Catholic Christ would do, hatin on gays, lesbians, abortion, contraception?
I wouldn't know (not voting for him), but I would assume his policies aren't extremely outside the mainstream of fiscal conservative thought.
You can be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative. There are a lot more of us than is generally recognized.
One of the things that sort of freaked me out in the debates was when Romney was going on about how he would tackle China on trade parity issues, arguing that we (the U.S.) should get really 'tough' with them because 'they need us more than we need them' in trading. It was in his argument with Huntsman over China.
Huntsman didn't pick up on it, but I kept thinking, "Gee, Mitt, what about when China says to you - 'you don't want our trade policies - then we don't want your debt'?" I mean, our relative timidity with China is for the same reason as our relative timidity with Saudi Arabia.
In fact, the U.S. DOES need what those countries need more than they need us.
Obama talks nicely to China for the same reason that Bush 43 said about Saudi Arabia: "I will ask the king very nicely, Please will you sell us some more oil?"
Speaking as one of them, I agree.
People care more about their personal greed and envy than they do about two gay guys having gay sex and killing unborn babies. I know that Rick Santorum and other conservative koolaid drinkers want you to think that gay sex is a very important issue but most people could care less. They want a better economy first. The economy is always first.
I know several people that hold the "sanc y of marriage" as a central issue for them as voters. If Santorum can prove he cares about protecting greed and preventing the other two, he'll get votes.
People that vote for candidates because they say they're gonna ban abortion or gay people are sadly misguided. Democrats and liberal voters are also sad if they buy into threats made by candidates that say they will ban gay people and abortion.
Nominating a supreme court judge that could result in overturning Roe v. Wade, or putting presidential backing behind a cons utional amendment to establish marriage as a union between a a man and a woman...these aren't delusions of grandure, they're legitimate goals.
Thats all smoke and posturing.
Roe V Wade will never be overturned and same sex marriage is not a biggie as a cons utional issue. At that level it really comes down to interpretation of the cons ution and conservative justices aren't trying to write new law.
Exactly.
People don't give a about abortion and gay people wanting to get married. If they did, abortion would be illegal and gay people could get married in every state.
Even the great Obama knows that. He only repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell so he could use that as leverage with gay voters. Since that happened, he can say "look what I did for you" to them.
^ Last two posts spot on...
Fringe subjects are great to polarize and divide... but at the end of the day, money in the pocket sway votes...
happens all the time, actually. the classic flip flop is Scalia in Raich.conservative justices aren't trying to write new law.
the majority posing and answering questions and delivering remedies not sought by the party, in Citizens United, is another example
there are probably hundreds of others
Bush v Gore, even though it was a one off.
I disagree that no one cares about gay rights and abortion. DADT needed to be repealed and inevitably would have been, whether it was Obama or a subsequent President. Gay marriage will eventually be legal everywhere as well. The legalization of gays in the military and gay marriage are not wedge issues, they are inevitabilities in an evolving society.
Once gay marriage is legal everywhere, it will then become a wedge issue for some time (like abortion) to rile up social conservatives. But while those decisions would not likely be reversed I think it's completely wrong to say no one gives a about them.
Jacob 1983 cares. He cares a lot.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
