New Developments III

[criddic3]

I don't know. I just don't like to "sink to the same level." If you feel that Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann are 'barbarians," a very strong term, I don't think it necessary or productive to do an "eye for an eye" type response. That's just me. But you could call the president a barbarian for voting to allow doctors a safety net if they don't save babies who survive an abortion.

I don't really wish I were straight, Oscarguy, but I know that life would have a different rhythm to it if I were. No, i don't think you have to be a Democrat or a liberal if you are gay. I disagree with most Republicans about what it means to be gay. Particularly the Religious Right. They believe that it is a moral sin to engage in gay activity. I have talked with very conservative members of my family about this subject without revealing myself. They say that being gay in and of itself is not the sin, but the act of being with someone of the same sex is. My response was "well why would God allow so many people to be gay if he doesn't allow them to find love." The answer is always that we are not meant to question such things. I said that scientists have found no study showing that there are significant differences mentally or physically, and the response was "well you can't study the soul." I found that a bit cynical, but I love my family and we agree to disagree.

The most you will get out of most Republicans is that individual arrangements between two consenting adults should be legally allowed. However, most Republicans are against gay marriage on the grounds that marriage was intended for a man and woman to procreate while bonded in matrimony in a life-long commitment. In essence, its the name that's the problem. They feel that their definition is the only one that can be called a marriage. I'm willing to concede that if a compromise may be reached where gays can have legally binding commitments in which all the rights are attached. Newt Gingrich said that, if the people of a state vote for gay marriage that is the correct procedure. He doesn't agree with it, but he believes that judges shouldn't dictate it. I think that is a fairly reasonable position. Of course he would like a federal amendment banning gay marriage, but so did Bush. It won't happen, because it really isn't necessary. That stance is a purely political one that helps keep the far-right on board.

My feeling is that you don't change things from the outside, you change them from the inside. Besides, I agree with many other issues Republicans stand behind.

[Big Magilla]

The only Republican candidate whose personal integrity seems to be without question is Ron Paul. He is consistent and doesn't cater to the audience the way the others do.

Romney is an elitist, an opportunist and a liar. Everyone seems to see through him, but the most rational Republicans support him because he's the only one who might actually be a moderate.

Gingrich is an elitist, an opportunist and a liar and someone who will go off the handle at the slightest provocation. He has no chance in a general election.

Santorum is the anti-Kennedy. Kennedy made it clear his religion would not control the way he ran the country in heh pre-Evanglical America of fifty-two years ago. Santorum, who is the right of Cardinal Dolan and the Pope, would base all his decision on the Catholic Church's most restrictive stances which are at variance with 99% of most Catholics who believe the Church should keep its nose out of the bedroom. I don't think he's evil like the Bachmans who are complete morons. He's sanctimonious to a fault, but not hypocritical. He probably only has sex with his wife to procreate and has never had nor would have sexual relations with anyone else. He's not likely to get many votes beyond the come-to-Jesus Evangleicals whether they be Catholic, Baptist or members of the Church of the Four Leaf Clover, and the homely girls who are waiting for a man just like him to sweep them up on a white horse, but his public santimony has already sirred up the worst in social conservatives throughout the country, not theat they needed musch prompting.

If the Republicans continue on this track to the nomination, I don't think they'll be able to revert back to the middle in the general election and maybe, just maybe, they'll suffer a big enough loss for the more level-headed members of the party to move it closer to the center and the Democrats further to the left, which would be more in keeping with the thinking of most people in the country, most of whom ar too busy or too compalcent to bother to vote.

[OscarGuy]

Criddic wants to be straight, doncha know? After all, he won't ever be accepted by his party's base unless he's "re-educated".

[Sonic Youth]

Well, criddic, when the target of such condescension calls gays "barbarians" and feels they need to be re-educated, I don't think you should trouble yourself over whether the tone in response to that is overly-condescending or not. What you should really think is "what goes around, comes around".

But it's nice to see you allowed that one little, parenthetical aside to ignore addressing what I said about Santorum. Maybe you're in agreement on this one?

[criddic3]

Well I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with being gay (I am for goodness sake), but I think snarky comments like "her husband is gay" or "he wears vests, he must be gay" are condescending and counter-productive.

[Sonic Youth]

Well there's an intelligent statement.

The words he chose weren't nice. The sentiment, however, is another issue. Santorum is one of the most virulently anti-homosexual zealots ever to run for public office, much less for president. He's even worse than Michelle Bachmann (who at least found it in her heart to marry one). And if someone's as obsessed with the gay community as Santorum is, then the rest of us have every right to speculate why that may be.

Ah, you guys are hopeless! lol

You know you do your cause no justice by saying things like "she married one." It's all too mean-spirited. Disagree with them sure. No problem with that. But you aren't going to convince anyone with that kind of personal attack. Maybe I'm holding you to too high a standard, though. You have the right to be mean, but I don't think it makes much sense.

I do my cause no justice? Everyone here supports my "cause" except you, so my "cause" isn't hurt a bit, and since you're never convinced by anything we say what difference does it make? And there was nothing mean-spirited in what I said. It's only mean-spirited or a personal attack if you think there's something wrong with being gay. I'm not attacking Bachmann's husband at all. Beard or no beard, the truth is they look very happy with each other and are fine with the arrangement. I wish them well, so long as they don't affect public policy. But don't play innocent and pretend that Michelle's husband doesn't give off that vibe.

[criddic3]

Santorum is a closeted fag. I also can't imagine a better gift the Republicans could give us than to nominate this pencil dick. Bring it!

Well there's an intelligent statement.

The words he chose weren't nice. The sentiment, however, is another issue. Santorum is one of the most virulently anti-homosexual zealots ever to run for public office, much less for president. He's even worse than Michelle Bachmann (who at least found it in her heart to marry one). And if someone's as obsessed with the gay community as Santorum is, then the rest of us have every right to speculate why that may be.

Ah, you guys are hopeless! lol

You know you do your cause no justice by saying things like "she married one." It's all too mean-spirited. Disagree with them sure. No problem with that. But you aren't going to convince anyone with that kind of personal attack. Maybe I'm holding you to too high a standard, though. You have the right to be mean, but I don't think it makes much sense.

[Sonic Youth]

Santorum is a closeted fag. I also can't imagine a better gift the Republicans could give us than to nominate this pencil dick. Bring it!

Well there's an intelligent statement.

The words he chose weren't nice. The sentiment, however, is another issue. Santorum is one of the most virulently anti-homosexual zealots ever to run for public office, much less for president. He's even worse than Michelle Bachmann (who at least found it in her heart to marry one). And if someone's as obsessed with the gay community as Santorum is, then the rest of us have every right to speculate why that may be.

[Greg]

Santorum in '08: "Satan is attacking" America

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... g-america/

[criddic3]

Santorum is a closeted fag. I also can't imagine a better gift the Republicans could give us than to nominate this pencil dick. Bring it!

Well there's an intelligent statement.

[Greg]

Santorum is a closeted fag. I also can't imagine a better gift the Republicans could give us than to nominate this pencil dick. Bring it!

I was unaware that sleeveless vests are a gay fashion statement.

[flipp525]

Santorum is a closeted fag. I also can't imagine a better gift the Republicans could give us than to nominate this pencil dick. Bring it!

[criddic3]

At this point it might be an embarrassing landslide either way the GOP goes...it shouldn't be this close...they say the main objective is stopping re-election at all costs, but the old guard can't resist Santorum nuttiness. Even with gas prices supposed to increase by a dollar come this summer, I can't see which swing state Santorum could possibly take over Obama.

I completely agree (though I don't think Mr. Santorum is actually "nutty"). If he's the nominee, Obama and the Democrats will make him out to be "nutty" and a lot of people will buy into that narrative. However, I believe that whoever the GOP nominee is the party will vote for him over Obama. The question is, how disenfranchised are independents with Obama. It may be that enough of them decide not to vote for the president that it will still be fairly close. The one thing that Romney has going for him is the idea that independents would go for him over Obama because of his background in business. I've been skeptical of this throughout the primary season. That is why I am for Gingrich, who may seem too controversial but who could be persuasive enough as an alternative to bring enough indepedents on board. At this point President Obama has to think he has a shot at re-election, but he cannot think that it will be easy. Gallup just came out with a poll showing his approval at 43%. His numbers have been fluctuating recently. People seem to be believe that the economy is slowwwwwly coming back, but I'm not sure how much credit they are giving to him. After all, some of his more recent proposals to deal with the economy in his way, have been thwarted by the GOP-led House of Representatives. This is what they ran on in 2010, and in the end a lot of people may actually think this is a good thing. So he can't count on voters giving him another four years when they've been mad at him for the past three years. That kind of "kiss and make up" would be an incredible turn around. Not impossible, but I imagine unlikely no matter who he is up against. The truth is that Santorum is just the latest in a long line of flirtations the base of the GOP has had with an alternative to Mitt Romney. Now, I am not rooting for him but I can see that wresting the nomination from the former governor is a difficult task at this point. There is but one possibility that is intriguing: a brokered convention. The real reason why all three remaining contenders are staying in surely is to prevent Romney from getting the 1144 he needs to win outright. They hope that the fight goes all the way to the August convention, where they will all have a say in what happens. In their view, this gives them a level playing field where money will have less of a role. Of course, Romney also has the backing of most party elders and elites. Chances are Mr. Romney will get the required magic number of 1144, but his poll numbers are finally slipping, at a time when he really wishes they weren't. If that had happened a few months ago, he would have time to recover before votes were cast. Now, though, it's becoming a problem. In a sense it's karma, for all the negative campaigning he did to win New Hampshire and (especially) Florida. Sure negative ads are a part of campaigning, but he really went overboard trying to destroy Newt Gingrich. He succeeded, but he didn't completely knock the former Speaker out. That has to worry him. Now he'll have to fight harder to win the nomination he thought would be much easier.

[Bog]

At this point it might be an embarrassing landslide either way the GOP goes...it shouldn't be this close...they say the main objective is stopping re-election at all costs, but the old guard can't resist Santorum nuttiness. Even with gas prices supposed to increase by a dollar come this summer, I can't see which swing state Santorum could possibly take over Obama.

[Greg]

Polls now have Santorum leading Romney in both Michigan and Ohio as well as nationwide.