• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Two miscast candidates

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will022312.php3

George Will said:
The Midwest begins on the western slopes of the Allegheny Mountains, around Rick Santorum’s Pittsburgh, birthplace of the Ohio River, the original highway into the Midwest. Pittsburgh fueled the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, an early eruption of Western resentment of the overbearing East, which taxed the whiskey that Westerners made from their grain. Santorum the Midwesterner, after victories in Iowa, Minnesota and Missouri, is wagering more of his political capital on the region.

Rather than wait for the congenial calendar of Super Tuesday (March 6), featuring five culturally conservative states (Georgia, Tennessee, Virginia, Oklahoma, Idaho), he is contesting Michigan, which votes Tuesday, and Ohio. But instead of keeping his Rust Belt focus on his blue-collar roots and economic program for reviving manufacturing, he has opened multiple fronts in the culture wars.

By doing so — questioning much prenatal testing, disdaining Barack Obama’s environmentalism as “phony theology,” calling involvement of even state governments in public education “anachronistic,” reiterating that abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest, explaining the proper purpose of sex (procreation) — Santorum has eclipsed Newt Gingrich, his rival for the support of social conservatives. But in doing so Santorum has made his Catholicism more central and problematic in this nomination contest than Romney’s Mormonism has been.

The problem is not that the phenomena that trouble Santorum are unserious. The use of prenatal testing for search-and-destroy missions against Down syndrome and other handicapped babies is barbaric. Obama’s stealthy pursuit of a national curriculum for kindergarten through 12th grade is ill-advised and illegal. And no domestic problem — not even the unsustainable entitlement state — is more urgent and intractable than that of family disintegration.

The entitlement state can be reformed by various known — if currently politically impossible — policy choices. But no one really knows the causes of family disintegration, so it is unclear whether those causes can be combated by government measures.

We do know the social pathologies flowing from the fact that now more than 50 percent of all babies born to women under age 30 are born to unmarried mothers. These pathologies, related to a constantly renewed cohort of adolescent males without fathers at home, include disorderly neighborhoods, schools that cannot teach, mass incarceration and the intergenerational transmission of poverty. We do not know how to address this with government policies, even though the nation has worried about it for almost 50 years.

In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then in President Lyndon Johnson’s administration, published his report on the black family’s “crisis,” which was that 24 percent of black children were then born to unmarried women. Today, 73 percent are. Forty-one percent of all children are now born to unmarried women.

Moynihan, a social scientist in politics, proposed various family policies but also noted this: When the medieval invention of distilling was combined with Britain’s 18th-century surplus of grain, the result was cheap gin — and appalling pockets of social regression. The most effective response to which was not this or that government policy, it was John Wesley — Methodism. Which brings us back to Santorum.

He is an engagingly happy warrior, except when he is not. Then he is an angry prophet of a dystopian future in which, he has warned, people will be “holed up in their homes afraid to go outside at night.” He has the right forebodings but might have the wrong profession. Presidential candidates do not thrive as apostles of social regeneration; they are expected to be as sunny as Ronald Reagan was as he assured voters that they were as virtuous as their government was tedious.

Today’s Republican contest has become a binary choice between two similarly miscast candidates. Mitt Romney cannot convince voters that he understands the difference between business and politics, between being a CEO and the president. To bring economic rationality to an underperforming economic entity requires understanding a market segment. To bring confidence to a discouraged nation requires celebrating its history and sketching an inspiring destiny this history has presaged.

Romney is right about the futility of many current policies, but being offended by irrationality is insufficient. Santorum is right to be alarmed by many cultural trends but implies that religion must be the nexus between politics and cultural reform. Romney is not attracting people who want rationality leavened by romance. Santorum is repelling people who want politics unmediated by theology.

Neither Romney nor Santorum looks like a formidable candidate for November.

I agree with the bolded part completely.

Only the most dyed-in-the-wool of Republican party shills would vote for either of these two idiots in November.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
If it was a choice between Barack Obama and Bozo the Clown, i'd vote for the Bozo that wore the wig every time. I guess i'm a party shill.

It's not a choice like that, though. You don't have to vote for Bozo the Clown to vote against Obama.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
It's not a choice like that, though. You don't have to vote for Bozo the Clown to vote against Obama.

It's an even worse choice than that, I get to pick between Obama and Romney. Both choices suck, but in my opinion Romney sucks less then Obama.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
It's an even worse choice than that, I get to pick between Obama and Romney. Both choices suck, but in my opinion Romney sucks less then Obama.

There are lots of third-party candidates, or you can write-in one. You also don't have to vote at all in the presidential race and can, instead, vote for only state/local candidates.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
There are lots of third-party candidates, or you can write-in one. You also don't have to vote at all in the presidential race and can, instead, vote for only state/local candidates.

I live in California, my vote for the President counts for less then a fart in a hurricane here, but i'll still vote for the Republican.
In the interests of full disclosure I did vote for Jimmy Carter in 1980 though.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
I live in California, my vote for the President counts for less then a fart in a hurricane here, but i'll still vote for the Republican.
In the interests of full disclosure I did vote for Jimmy Carter in 1980 though.

Why? Why not a third-party candidate?
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
If it was a choice between Barack Obama and Bozo the Clown, i'd vote for the Bozo that wore the wig every time. I guess i'm a party shill.

But Bozo the Clown would be a better choice than Romney or Santorum by FAR. Hell we have people locked up in Guantanamo that are less religiously zealous than Santorum.
 

ky54

Senior member
Mar 30, 2010
532
1
76
One could always vote for Pat Paulson and the fact he'd dead actually works in his favor.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
You can always write his name in...you do not have to vote for Obama you know.

I'm not voting for Obama. You should learn how to read: I picked "third party or write-in" in the "If Santorum wins the nomination ..." thread/poll.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
I'm not voting for Obama. You should learn how to read: I picked "third party or write-in" in the "If Santorum wins the nomination ..." thread/poll.

Your vote is your own, but frankly it's inconceivable to me that anyone who cares deeply about gay rights would not vote for Obama IF Santorum is the alternative candidate. Voting third party is throwing away your vote in this system, and Obama would seem the lesser of the two evils even if you don't like a lot of his policies. Then again, maybe you think Santorum is better than Obama on other issues and so you call it a wash.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Your vote is your own, but frankly it's inconceivable to me that anyone who cares deeply about gay rights would not vote for Obama IF Santorum is the alternative candidate. Voting third party is throwing away your vote in this system, and Obama would seem the lesser of the two evils even if you don't like a lot of his policies. Then again, maybe you think Santorum is better than Obama on other issues and so you call it a wash.

I cannot vote for either Obama or Santorum. Neither is compatible with my generally libertarian views.

Yes, Obama is a friend to me on GLBT issues, but he's far too much of a tax-and-spend Democrat.

Neither Santorum nor Romney would be a friend to my wallet and would be a foe to me on GLBT issues (Santorum being the bigger foe of the two).

So I'm left with third-party and write-in candidates.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,373
33,011
136
I cannot vote for either Obama or Santorum. Neither is compatible with my generally libertarian views.

Yes, Obama is a friend to me on GLBT issues, but he's far too much of a tax-and-spend Democrat.

Neither Santorum nor Romney would be a friend to my wallet and would be a foe to me on GLBT issues (Santorum being the bigger foe of the two).

So I'm left with third-party and write-in candidates.
Do you say the bolded above because of all the legislation that Obama has pushed to raise federal spending or because he has to raise taxes to pay for spending that was approved long before he came into office? I am genuinely curious.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Do you say the bolded above because of all the legislation that Obama has pushed to raise federal spending or because he has to raise taxes to pay for spending that was approved long before he came into office? I am genuinely curious.

I say that because he hasn't proposed serious reforms to entitlements. I also say that because of Obamacare.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I'm not voting for Obama. You should learn how to read: I picked "third party or write-in" in the "If Santorum wins the nomination ..." thread/poll.

And if Romney wins the GOP nomination?

EDIT: Just read your other posts. I am going to assume you are not voting for Obama no matter what. Is this true?
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
I cannot vote for either Obama or Santorum. Neither is compatible with my generally libertarian views.

Yes, Obama is a friend to me on GLBT issues, but he's far too much of a tax-and-spend Democrat.

Neither Santorum nor Romney would be a friend to my wallet and would be a foe to me on GLBT issues (Santorum being the bigger foe of the two).

So I'm left with third-party and write-in candidates.

Fair enough. I brought this up because I happen to have 2 friends who are both gay and libertarian leaning. It's odd that I know 2 gays who are not liberals but then they're partners so it isn't a coincidence. When I discussed the primaries with them last week, they had a split opinion on how they'd vote if Romney got the nomination. One said he'd vote for Romney. The other a third party. However, if Santorum gets the nomination, both are adamant that they will hold their nose and vote for Obama. Their reasoning is that Santorum is no less big government than Obama, but he's a homophobe and Obama is not. And they wouldn't vote third party because they felt they needed to register their protest against a homophobic candidate by voting for his only viable opponent. Both know their votes are irrelevant to the outcome here in California. Their reasoning seemed pretty sound to me. However, everyone has their own calculus in determining who they vote for, of course.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,373
33,011
136
I say that because he hasn't proposed serious reforms to entitlements. I also say that because of Obamacare.
Okay. So the evidence saying that 'Obamacare' will actually save the government money is what, not valid? Complete bullshit? Partisan hackery?

Entitlements. What a great word. Could you define what you consider entitlements for me? Does it include SS? If so, how is SS an entitlement? If not, what entitlements should be cut 'meaningfully'? What is your definition of meaningful, btw? Because, for example, cutting all forms of welfare down to zero would not result in a meaningful difference to our deficit, IMHO. That leaves Medicare/Medicaid as the only place to make 'meaningful' cuts. Would you agree so far?
 
Last edited: