Patterico's Pontifications

3/22/2012

Santorum: Obama Is Better Than the Etch-a-Sketch Candidate

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:28 pm

This seems unlikely to be polarizing:

“You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there. If you’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future,” Santorum told a crowd at USAA.

So. A candidate who would, say, appoint a Supreme Court justice who would vote to take away your Second Amendment rights is better than Mitt Romney.

It’s quite a claim. And it will certainly be used by Obama in the general election.

153 Responses to “Santorum: Obama Is Better Than the Etch-a-Sketch Candidate”

  1. So long Santy .. we hardly knew ye.

    vor2 (4cf0a3)

  2. Santorum needs to call it a campaign. He’s not going to win the nomination, and he needs to man up and accept the result.

    He’s the guy who can’t accept the fact that his number one choice for the Senior Prom chose to go to the Prom with another guy…so he’s making that desperate phone call at 11:45pm on a school night when he pleads, “But Jenny, I saw Mitt Romney drowning kitty cats in the lake last summer ! He’s a jerk ! Don’t go to the Prom with him !”

    Elephant Stone (0ae97d)

  3. One problem I have had with Santorum… going so far as to say it makes me lean Romney, is his lack of leadership experience.

    I don’t know this guy’s judgment.

    In Santorum’s defense, this was probably just a cynical attack on Romney meant to highlight the fears conservatives have. That’s not a great defense, but it’s a lot better than being so crazy one prefers Obama.

    Dustin (330eed)

  4. Santorum needs to call it a campaign. He’s not going to win the nomination, and he needs to man up and accept the result.

    I hope Santorum is running in all 50 states and shows up at the convention.

    I actually donated to Newt recently hoping the same for him.

    This is a great idea. For one thing, it helps give conservatives a reason to show up to primary elections in later states, helping the GOP’s downticket primaries.

    Sure, Romney’s gonna be the nominee, but this will also help Romney cater as much and for as long to the right as possible. And I don’t buy that it costs Romney much of anything. Once the convention happens, this will all be in the past anyway.

    Dustin (330eed)

  5. Silliness

    JD (318f81)

  6. So. A candidate who would, say, appoint a Supreme Court justice who would vote to take away your Second Amendment rights is better than Mitt Romney.

    How about a candidate who voted present for late term partial abortion would be better than one who is strongly pro-life?

    This is just a terrible move of desperation by Santorum. For someone so consistently and admirably pro-life, his hypocritical underpants are showing.

    Dana (4eca6e)

  7. This would be a good time for Santorum to read Patterico’s post on the correct way to fix mistakes.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  8. How about a candidate who voted present for late term partial abortion would be better than one who is strongly pro-life?

    Who has no chance of winning the election and is creating TV ads for the Democrat. There, finished it for you. Santorum is a worse dog in the manger than Gingrich at this point. I would read Santorum out of the party at this point. No wonder his last campaign ended in a 17 point loss.

    Mike K (326cba)

  9. Adios Muchacho. You’ve blown it big time–and handed a weapon to the Donks. You took the eye off the ball, got all wee wee’d up and embarassed yourself. Goodbye Ricky–don’t let the door slap yer ass on the way out.

    Comanche Voter (dc4fc0)

  10. ohnoes

    quick somebody needs to show Rick this

    that’ll take his mind off the old sketcher sketcher thing

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  11. Keep your eye on the ball!

    AZ Bob (1c9631)

  12. did the video change I am very confuzzled

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  13. ok whatever I musta clicked on something

    anyway I watched it again and it really looks like his delivery is way too doofusy to make a very effective commercial … the Obama campaign will be left just using this to drive the “etch a sketch” label – which, that’s pretty weak tea really, especially if it’s coming from the campaign of an economy-raping fascist

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  14. “You win by giving people a choice.”

    Rick – Yes, that’s what the primaries are for.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  15. I heard santorum on beck the other day crying about the nanny state. He actually said, “the idea that government has the right to say what you’re allowed to ingest is just absurd*” with no sense of irony.

    *paraphrase. But pretty damn close.*

    Ghost (6f9de7)

  16. Can the people who supported Santorum in the past few weeks finally admit that they only did it because he was the last “not Romney” standing? If you expect the majority of Republicans to embrace your 5th choice, you’d have to do better than this clown.

    bskb (7be5cf)

  17. Newt: “I may have some very substantial disagreements with Gov. Romney. There is no doubt in my mind that if the choice was Gov. Romney or Barack Obama, we would have no choice,” Gingrich said. “The danger of Obama is so great that I would hope that every candidate running – Ron Paul, Gov. Romney and Sen. Santorum – that we would all agree that whoever becomes the Republican nominee, we have one common goal and that is to defeat Barack Obama.”

    Dana (4eca6e)

  18. Can the people who supported Santorum in the past few weeks finally admit that they only did it because he was the last “not Romney” standing?

    That’s obviously the case for most of them, yes.

    But then, you need to figure out a way to bring them into the fold, right? I think it’s amazing that Santorum, with no few major accomplishments and very little experience, is still hanging in there against a guy with many billionaires on his pac. I think I read a story this morning saying just his PAC alone outspent the rest of the field combined.

    Santorum made a really stupid comment. He should withdraw that and even apologize for it. But he’s done an amazing job. When you think of all the people he outlasted and how he won states with an exponential money disadvantage, it’s very impressive.

    you’d have to do better than this clown.

    Unfortunately, no one better showed up. Romney can beat Obama and Rick’s wrong… Romney will be better than Obama. But the concern Santorum communicated about Romney’s consistency… that’s a valid issue that I wish he had raised more carefully. I think Romney can succeed if he focuses on those concerns.

    Dustin (330eed)

  19. @Dana 17

    The sad thing is Newt could have been a great VP. If you look at the early debate performances, he practically looked like he was running for VP, reserved in attacking other candidates and focused on Obama. He was practically everybody’s dream guy to take Biden to the woodshed in debates.

    Then he got a whiff of hope and threw it all away. Newt is a smart guy, but he’s still too damn selfish and small for his own good.

    bskb (7be5cf)

  20. That was the most ham handed way of saying that Romney doesn’t offer a bright line contrast, but that is the truth,

    narciso (35ae48)

  21. Great quote, Dana. I’m voting Newt.

    Dustin (330eed)

  22. Honestly, they make up all sorts of carp, but this is like a large target;

    http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/101946/mitt-romney-massachusetts-governor-gas-prices-renewable-energy

    narciso (35ae48)

  23. Sorry Dustin, it isn’t impressive. He only survived because he didn’t even bother to register on anybody’s radar for 90 percent of the last 2 years. He couldn’t poll better than the margin of error before January of this year. If people had paid attention at all, they would have seen his big government history while in office and a form of social conservatism that would have been rejected 30 years ago, let alone today. That says nothing of the fact that he is generally toxic to the national electorate.

    The fact that people latched onto him isn’t a testament to anything in favor of Santorum, just the desperation of a certain class of primary voters. It could have just as easily been Bachman, Cain, or a ham sandwich.

    As for the impressiveness of anything, be impressed by how desperate he acts now that he doesn’t have a chance to win. This is the man who helped Arlen Specter be the 60th vote for ObamaCare and who now says he’d rather vote for Obama paints himself as the last ‘true conservative’ in the race. It would be outrageous if it wasn’t so pathetic.

    bskb (7be5cf)

  24. Context is always a little handy, don’t you think, unless you really think Romney doesn’t care about poor people, or really has a hankering to fire people,

    “Romneycare is a government-run healthcare program, it’s mandates, it’s fines, it’s insurance exchanges set up by the government,” Santorum said during a speech at the San Antonio campus of the military-focused financial services and insurance company USAA.

    “It’s the template for Obamacare,” Santorum said, using a term favored by Republicans to describe the federal healthcare law, Obama’s signature policy achievement.

    “Romneycare is the fundamental difference between Mitt Romney’s campaign and mine,” Santorum said in a statement released before his San Antonio speech. “I have the credibility and the record to stand up to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on the healthcare issue and say ‘no’.”

    narciso (35ae48)

  25. If he has an ounce of pride, and hope for a career in GOP politics, he’ll make this his opportunity to gracefully exit the race.

    shipwreckedcrew (97754e)

  26. Santorum is right. Romney is a liberal at heart, and a practiced (if transparent) liar. He’s moving rightward for the primaries only, and will tack to the center after Tampa. If elected his presidency would be a RINO disaster, as he positions himself for reelection by “reaching across the aisle” to “get things done” and prove himself to soccer moms and NYT editorial writers. Better to have a lame-duck Obama, boxed in by a Republican congress, his second term reduced to ceremony and speeches, his popularity plumetting (as always in 2nd terms), as Rubio and Christie wait in the wings.

    Kevin Stafford (1d1b9e)

  27. Sorry Dustin, it isn’t impressive. He only survived because he didn’t even bother to register on anybody’s radar for 90 percent of the last 2 years. He couldn’t poll better than the margin of error before January of this year.

    Yeah, he came out of nowhere. He beat Romney in many states even though he was outspent many times over. He gave Romney a run for his money is plenty of places Romney won heavily in 2008.

    just the desperation of a certain class of primary voters. It could have just as easily been Bachman, Cain, or a ham sandwich.

    It’s a pretty large group of folks. You won’t beat Obama without them. I hope the GOP can find something a little better to say to convince them they have their interests at heart.

    I think you’re mistaken, though. Santorum worked hard and campaigned well. And his source of success is largely due to his authenticity. He has more than the other candidates, including more than my preferred ones.

    There is a real thirst for that.

    Dustin (330eed)

  28. @Kevin

    If you are willing to sit out and let the Supreme Court go liberal for the rest of our lifetime for the sake of 2016 you are a dunce. Keep in mind all the people who wanted to wait out Obama 4 years ago as ObamaCare is being heard by the Supreme Court next week with his 2 appointees on the bench. If we lose the next election, we lose at least 2 conservative seats on the court. Not only that, we gain very strong liberals.

    Imagine what 4 Obama appointees would do with the constitution while you wait for the “true conservative” in the wings. We can’t afford to see that play out.

    bskb (7be5cf)

  29. We can’t afford to see that play out.

    You’re absolutely right.

    Dustin (330eed)

  30. Looks like Romney’s going to be the guy. I think Rick ought to go read the 11th Commandment, and then shut the hell up.

    Just my two cents, of course.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  31. Dave, even I think Santorum needs to back off this line.

    He can make his point without promoting Obama.

    If he actually believes what he says, he’s no better than Ron Paul and he ought to become a democrat. I think he just got too wound up in his Romney bashing. I totally empathize. But he went too far.

    Dustin (330eed)

  32. Well, I just read the request for an injunction against Naffe filed by O’Keefe’s lawyers.

    Made for interesting reading.

    Sounds like they’re claiming that during her brief visit to the “rape barn”, she accessed his computer, and did a little data dump, which explains how she got ahold of those legal documents, plus whatever else she has. Needless to say, they’re also saying that she didn’t have permission to do that.

    I think I’m pretty much inclined to believe what they’re saying.

    Might want to put a password on that bad boy, James.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  33. Whoops. Wrong thread. That’s what I get for posting at 0154 in the A.M.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  34. Rick S. needs to man up and fix this immediately. He needs to say he was tired–that what he uttered came out very wrong and that he was actually horrified when he heard it played back sounding as if he preferred Barack Obama to a candidate from his own party. He needs to admit it was a huge gaffe. He needs to issue an apology to Mr. Romney and every candidate running against Obama policies in 2012 on R tickets across the country.

    Then he needs to point out that when he and others on the right occasionally do make a verbal mis-step as we human beings all do–and as he just did– it seems to hit front page news and wall to wall cable. But when Barack Obama makes one of his many many off-teleprompter gaffes on the national and world stage the media ignores it and the general public rarely even hears about it. Then he should get a quizzical look on his face, look into the camera and say, “I’m sure I’m not the only American out there who wonders why that is”.

    Finally, behind the scenes he should do some serious soul-searching about graciously ending his candidacy now and use his energies and intellect to work for state and local R. candidates whom he can support and help to get elected.

    elissa (8a85cd)

  35. This is your republican party, 2012. Santorium is a joke. always has been a big govt. loser. Nearing the end of republican time.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  36. If Santorum isn’t on President Obama’s payroll, he should at least receive a nice thank you card. The way ol’ Rick is hacking away at Mitt, by the time the GOP primary race is over, there won’t be enough left of Romney to run against the president in the general election!

    President Obama by default in November! America is holding an election and the Republican Party isn’t planning on showing up!

    Erik (e3bc25)

  37. 35. I understand people not throwing in with Michele. She had the best platform but she is a lawyer, with no executive experience, ran a disastrous campaign and a reputation for being gaffe prone is deserved.

    Still she’s a better candidate than Santorum, did a better job in the debates, and inspires more confidence than Santorum.

    But Mr. Potatohead is right on this point, waging war with the enemy in front of one is better than having him in your midst.

    Libtards are just incapable of fighting and would rather file into the railcar than take a shot to the head.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  38. People are responisble to move into districts where their vote matters.

    Hoping for change without actually doing something practical, talking without walking, is aiding and abetting the enemy.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  39. 26. Stafford has an argument worth meeting, squishes. Put up or quit whinging.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  40. Nail, meet coffin. Looks like Santorum may be giving the Democrat’s latest Minister of Disinformation a run for her money … http://bit.ly/qVdDUt

    ombdz (2a81ef)

  41. The lesson of Meg Whitman, doesn’t seem to penetrate here, Lord Rove says ‘Obama’s personal dynamism’ will be a driving factor in the race, facepalm with an Old One.

    narciso (296d24)

  42. If Obama Rama Lama Bang Bang wants to quote Santorum, seems to me he’d need to adopt his views on contraception as well.

    ROMNEY! ARE YOU LISTENING? IF THE MISERABLE CLUSTER**** OF A FAILURE EVER DARES MENTION THIS, JUST TELL PEOPLE THAT OBAMA SHARES VIEWS WITH SANTORUM.

    But I doubt that anybody would care about what Santorum said.

    Two miserable cluster****s of a failure. Among a lot of others. At least Santorum is not charging American taxpayers $85m for his daughter’s Mexican vacation.

    nk (dec503)

  43. I like that law Fitzgerald used to convict Blagojevic. Honest services? Heh!

    nk (dec503)

  44. Well it’s also the law, that was abused to go after Sen. Stevens, Conrad Black, et al,

    narciso (296d24)

  45. I hate my party. So very, very much.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  46. Readilya cknowledge Romeny is far form perfect. but we don’t get to pick all the attributes of our candidates, we’re simplys tuck with a choice of the candidates available. Romeny si a lesser eveil to Obama, period. And if Santorum cannot see that he is a blasted fool.Those of us of a libertarin mindset already knew that.

    Bugg (34ad0e)

  47. Stevens, Conrad Black — two hogs living high off the hog on other people’s money. The end does sometimes justify the means. Tell me one thing to admire about these parasites predators.

    nk (dec503)

  48. “Romneycare is the fundamental difference between Mitt Romney’s campaign and mine,” Santorum said in a statement released before his San Antonio speech. “I have the credibility and the record to stand up to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on the healthcare issue and say ‘no’.”

    “… Unless we’re talking about expanding government health care, then I have no credibility at all.”

    Ghost (6f9de7)

  49. I don’t understand how Obama could use Rick’s quote against Mitt in the general election.

    Obama is going to want to differentiate himself from Mitt — not to use Rick as a reference to prove that he (Obama) and Mitt are the same.

    Joshua (9ede0e)

  50. it was still a stupid thing to say, and it was clearly meant to damage Romney should he be the nominee

    Santorum is only playing for Team Hateful Bigot, not Team R

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  51. I can totally understand GOP members enforcing codes of conduct on those that wish to reap the benefits of membership.

    That being said you’re as big a failures as SCOAMF, just more ignorant and incompetent and less arrogant and evil.

    Down the GOP.

    gary gulrud (1de2db)

  52. _______________________________________________

    Santorum is right. Romney is a liberal at heart, and a practiced (if transparent) liar.

    But he’s a fool if he doesn’t understand that Obama’s background and biases are those of an ultra liberal, on top of his being politically beholden to other rock-ribbed leftists (in the Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright category) along with many staunch garden-variety liberals (most Democrats).

    Santorum is correct to point out that Romney is full of squish, but it’s idiotic for him to frame that in a way that, in turn, rationalizes away just how extreme Obama is.

    Mark (31bbb6)

  53. If only Obama would reset when shaken. But after 3 years of disproof he still believes a centrally-planned command economy is the wave of the future. Even Carter could see the light if it was bright enough.

    It’s a narrow divide between “consistent” and “obstinate”. On some issues (e.g. contraception) Santorum seems to share that problem.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  54. Stupid statements like this are why Santorum deserves to lose. It’s better to have 4 more years of Obama oppressing our nation then a guy who knows and loves the free market system? Does anyone really think Santorum is more conservative on economic and fiscal policies? I used to respect Santorum but now I’m ready for him to go back to being just a former senator.

    Chris (f02884)

  55. it was clearly meant to damage Romney should he be the nominee

    Usually I scoff at this kind of comment, but the result here does actually damage Romney in the general.

    There is a no-so-fine line when folks like Santorum or even me criticize Romney… we always note ‘but Obama is worse’. Duh.

    I hope Santorum mans up, like elissa says, and corrects his statement. That Romney and Newt and the rest of them also offer unkind points is not relevant because I’ve never heard Romney even come close to saying Obama’s better. In fact, Romney’s done the exact opposite 100 times. I recall him saying ‘any of these candidate [at the debate] would be an improvement’ many times.

    When you’ve got folks like me defending Romney in the primary, you have gone to far.

    Dustin (330eed)

  56. *too

    Dustin (330eed)

  57. Individual mandate
    Cap and trade
    carbon dioxide caps
    Tying automatic increases to minimum wage to inflation
    Multiple positions on abortion
    The role of the private sector is to create jobs
    The 10th amendment envisioned federal. Lock grants to states for healthcare coverage
    SS can be fixed by tinkering around the edges

    The differences are just degrees. We will go over the cliff. Slower.

    JD (228f15)

  58. Just one more example of Santorum’s penchant for going well off message and saying things that will come back to haunt him.

    Colonel Haiku (df9857)

  59. If he has an ounce of pride, and hope for a career in GOP politics, he’ll make this his opportunity to gracefully exit the race.

    Right now, he is probably wondering if this will hurt his lobbying business.

    Mike K (326cba)

  60. The most important differences, IMHO, for the next four years will be in Congress.
    Please consider the following possibilities:
    1) a Pres. Obama and a Republican-led House and Senate
    2) a Pres. Romney and a Republican-led House and Senate
    I much prefer #2, thank you.
    (Yes, I know there are other possible combinations, but for now, I will consider these 2 as most likely. But remember in two more years, the Congressional balance may change again, depending largely on what happens in those two years.)

    Sue (6623c5)

  61. After blathering on and on about the evils of college education, free prenatal testing, JFK making him throw up, getting rid of internet porn, and other hot button issues, Rick obviously decided it was time to focus on other themes. I’m curious how this will work out for him.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  62. Obama gives people reason to believe he’s Muslim, Gingrich says http://t.co/J5oQC3Aa

    Colonel Haiku (df9857)

  63. Romney increases his lead in a new poll… http://t.co/4bd6wNJE

    Colonel Haiku (df9857)

  64. Comment by bskb — 3/22/2012 @ 10:32 pm

    This is the man who helped Arlen Specter be the 60th vote for ObamaCare

    Was he supposed to think that ifnthe fifth year after his re-election he’s going to switch parties and vote for something strongly opposed by Republicans??

    Santorum said he wanted to assure that any Supreme Court nominee by President Bush would get through, and Specter did that. And I think he said also that if someone else (meaning maybe not so moderate) had been Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee maybe Alito wouldn’t have been confirmed. Specter couldn’t be accused of running a partisan process or perhaps worked things out with Schumer or other Democrats. specter basically pledged he wouldn’t let a nomination be bottled up in committee (if Republicans didn’t want to bottle it up) and he wouldn’t provide Democrats with any excuses.

    If you blame anyone, blame Toomey.

    The interesting thing is one Bush nominee was stopped by Republicans – or they too were against it – Harriet Miers.

    and who now says he’d rather vote for Obama paints himself as the last ‘true conservative’ in the race. It would be outrageous if it wasn’t so pathetic.

    It’s not so much that this is plausible argument, but it sounds like it ought to be plausible. I guess this assumes that Obama has no principles and that every candidate with no principles will act the same way.

    Romney wouldn’t veto tax legislation that kept rates stable or a replacement of Obamacare.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  65. Because it seems to have galvanized support behind a wholly unworthy candidate (i.e., Mitt), for that reason alone Santorum’s comment was dumb.

    When the 2014 midterms and 2016 general roll around (after we’ve all been whipped into a frenzy by the spareness of Bush41 v2.0) we’ll see how much we miss a lame duck Obama with a Rubio or Ryan waiting in the wings.

    foxbat (4c8890)

  66. A lot of Republicans have supported Arlen Specter over the years.

    Santorum did so and it was a mistake in my opinion. The guy was a weasel. But John Mccain, George W Bush, Karl Rove, and many others made a similar mistake.

    The stretch here is blaming Santorum for Obamacare just because he supported a backstabber like Specter. Santorum obviously opposes Obamacare. His opponents, Newt and Mitt, have at some point praised the idea of a federal mandate for insurance, which is more to the point.

    I take Santorum’s comment about preferring Obama to be a lot more relevant, though. We’ve got to leave ourselves enough room to pull back together as a party in November. I mean, Santorum is a party leader at this point and I expect him to clean this up.

    Dustin (330eed)

  67. People are responisble to move into districts where their vote matters.

    – People are responsible to move the people in districts to where their vote matters.

    And not physically move them, gulrud. It’s called changing hearts & minds, sir.

    Icy (b60639)

  68. Just load em a cattle truck and drive them to Florida!

    Dustin (330eed)

  69. The argument that we need to elect Romney so that we guarantee conservative Sup Ct nominees is bullshit. First of all, in Mass Romney appointed terrible judges–pedantic big-govt academics, lefties soft on crime and hostile to prosecutors, etc.–and justified this shameful record by saying these were the only judges he could get confirmed by the dem legislature. President Romney will appoint a bunch of similar squishes, and then moan that these were the only fellas that Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer took a shine to, and isn’t it important that we reach across the aisle and practice the politics of the possible? Second point: Even in the unlikely event that Romney is (uncharacteristically) telling the truth about the jurists he’d look for, it’s always a crapshoot at best. Remember, George Bush nominated….Harriet Miers for Christ sake. His father gave us David Souter. From the sainted hands of Ronald Reagan came….Anthony Kennedy. Nixon gave us John Paul Stevens. So all of you who think it’s absolutely vital that we elect Willard to protect the Sup Ct….yeah, maybe not so much.

    [note: released from moderation. --Stashiu]

    Kevin Stafford (1d1b9e)

  70. The differences are just degrees. We will go over the cliff. Slower.

    I can vote for slower. I can’t vote for “not this cliff, you idiot! That cliff!”

    Ghost (71ac26)

  71. For me it’s not really a vote for anymore. I don’t have a lot of faith in the GOP right now. I hope to be proven wrong.

    It’s a protest of Obama. I’m just voting against.

    Dustin (330eed)

  72. “First of all, in Mass Romney appointed terrible judges–pedantic big-govt academics, lefties soft on crime and hostile to prosecutors, etc.–and justified this shameful record by saying these were the only judges he could get confirmed by the dem legislature.”

    Kevin – In Massachusetts, the judges are not confirmed by the legislature, so your argument is BS from the start. Also, what matters are those judges weighing in on, tough constitutional issues or criminal and ordinary civil matters.

    You have one opinion about Romney, other have different opinions. It’s impossible to prove either opinion right or wrong at this point.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  73. #69 Kevin: It was actually Ford who gave us John Paul Stevens. Nixon, on the other hand, gave us Harry Blackmun.

    On the other hand, look who Democratic presidents have given us for the Supreme Court. Obama gave us Kagan and Sotomayor. Clinton gave us Ginsburg and Breyer. Carter had no Supreme Court appointments during his term. LBJ gave us Marshall and Abe Fortas. It’s been 50 years since a Democratic president appointed someone who would eventually be considered conservative to the Supreme Court (JFK appointed Byron White in 1962).

    Electing Romney won’t guarantee conservative justices, I’ll admit. But electing Obama will guarantee liberal justices. And if Mitt tried to appoint a Harriet Miers-type justice, at least there’s a chance that her nomination could be withdrawn.

    Joshua (9ede0e)

  74. Daley Rocks and Joshua–

    My apologies, was typing fast in my above post and made two errors: Yes, John Paul Stevens came from Ford, not Nixon–but the point remains: one of the most corrosive and rigid left-wing ideologues in memory, and he came to us from a Republican not a Dem. As for Romney’s judicial appointees in Mass, yes, it’s not the Dem legislature that vets them, it’s the Governor’s Council, as I well know but stupidly mangled. But again, the point remains: Romney appointed terrible judges (75% of whom were Dems, btw), and when called on it by conservatives, he lamely mumbled about the composition of the vetting body….as he will again if president and he faces a Senate with fewer than 60 GOP votes. Finally, I wasn’t trying to prove my opinion but merely state it. You know, like you do. A lot.

    Kevin Stafford (1d1b9e)

  75. “But again, the point remains: Romney appointed terrible judges (75% of whom were Dems, btw), and when called on it by conservatives, he lamely mumbled about the composition of the vetting body….as he will again if president and he faces a Senate with fewer than 60 GOP votes.”

    Kevin – I would find your argument less BS if you could explain were you in Gov. Romney’s shoes how you would have managed to get a passel of conservative judges through a nominating council stacked with liberal democrats rather than just repeating the often heard talking point that he appointed liberal judges in a liberal state so he’s going to do it again. It’s not a convincing argument to me without an explanation of how he was supposed to achieve the goals you wanted with the reality he faced.

    It’s sort of like the legislature turning down his requests for tax cuts every year that nobody like to talk about or his 800 vetoes. Reality bites, especially when your critics ignore it.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  76. File this under “Doesn’t Fit the Narrative”…

    Reports of the GOP’s turnout problems appear to have been slightly premature.

    A Fix review of turnout in the Republican presidential nominating process shows that it has rebounded in recent weeks, and GOP voters are now turning out in consistently higher numbers than they did in 2008.

    In addition, in the most competitive Republican contests held this year, turnout is up almost universally, with just a couple exceptions.

    Turnout is up in all four states that have held major contests since Super Tuesday — Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi and Illinois — and is up overall in eight of 12 contests held this month for which there was a comparable contest held four years ago.

    … Overall, there are 24 contests that can be compared fairly to 2008. Add them up and turnout is up 2 percent so far this year and has risen in 15 of the 24 states.”

    http://t.co/ZXLAU9hV

    Colonel Haiku (5b963b)

  77. Remember the ages of the SCOTUS justices: Scalia 76, Kennedy 75, Ginsburg 79, Breyer 73 and then tell me about your principled protest vote or Santorum’s “may as well vote for Obama” take.

    Colonel Haiku (5b963b)

  78. Santorum: not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there. If you’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future,

    I think he means that Barack Obama might be better, or you can say Mitt Romney might be worse, on foreign policy.

    He might be right. Of course he’ll wait and see and come down in the end for Mitt Romney.

    Why should he say such a thing?

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/06/press-conference-president

    At this stage, it is my belief that we have a window of opportunity where this can still be resolved diplomatically. That’s not just my view. That’s the view of our top intelligence officials; it’s the view of top Israeli intelligence officials. And, as a consequence, we are going to continue to apply the pressure even as we provide a door for the Iranian regime to walk through where they could rejoin the community of nations by giving assurances to the international community that they’re meeting their obligations and they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon.

    This can still be resolved diplomatically.

    Obama has been using that word “still” for quite some time:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-01-24/state-of-the-union-transcript/52780694/1

    Obama’s 2012 State of the Union Address:

    But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible..

    “Still” means that the odds are less than 50%.

    The insetion of still is quite gratutitous. He’s not otherwise openly hinting or being specific about use force.

    Also note Iran can’t just stop. They have to allow inspections that work.

    Obama also said March 6:

    And so this notion that somehow we have a choice to make in the next week or two weeks, or month or two months, is not borne out by the facts.

    President Obama mentioned four periods of time but didn’t stretch it out beyond “two months” meaning he could launch an attack, or make a decision, in June (because that may the Israeli timetable)

    Most ominous:

    Q Thank you, Mr. President. Today is Super Tuesday, so I wonder if you might weigh in on some of your potential Republican opponents. Mitt Romney has criticized you on Iran and said, “Hope is not a foreign policy.” He also said that you are “America’s most feckless President since Carter.” What would you like to say to Mr. Romney?

    THE PRESIDENT: Good luck tonight. (Laughter.)

    Q No, really.

    THE PRESIDENT: Really. (Laughter.)

    And Mitt Romney’s been saying that if Obama is re-elected Iran will get a bomb but if he is elected, it won’t.

    No person who cares about the issue could talk that way. How can he be so sure it will and how can he be so sure he’ll succeed?

    Then Mitt Romney’s chief issue with China is the value of their currency.

    Not their military build-up, which Obama has at least taken notice of (the problem is he seems to want a militry that can only contain China and nothng else) Not their nuclear proliferation.Not heir human rights record or support of dictators. Not their cyber-spying. Not their defective and worse exports. Not their violations of copyright and trademark law. But their currency!!

    There are reasons to worry about Mitt Romney’s competence and intelligence and if maybe he’ll pick a really bad adviser.

    Sammy Finkelman (e70ce9)

  79. Shorter Kevin–Yeah, we can afford to wait for 2016, no prob. Heck, four more years of Obama and Holder won’t be so bad. It’s only like 1460 days in the big scheme of things. Romney once appointed some bad judges–Obama appointed some really bad Supreme Court judges. It’s just 6 of one and half dozen of another. Yawn.

    elissa (8a85cd)

  80. “Reports of the GOP’s turnout problems appear to have been slightly premature.”

    Colonel – The MSM and liberals (BIRM) and NotRomney supporters have a vested interest in communicating a message of dispirited and divided Republican and conservative electorate. The absence of a Senate or gubenatorial race or any state wide issue in Illinois made a low turnout readily understandable, but the cheerleading for the “nobody is voting” narrative was pretty funny.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  81. “Not their military build-up, which Obama has at least taken notice of (the problem is he seems to want a militry that can only contain China and nothng else) Not their nuclear proliferation.Not heir human rights record or support of dictators. Not their cyber-spying.”

    Sammy – Are any of the above new issues? Are any of the below also new issues? Would you say trade is directly related to currency manipulation? Romney has actually come out firmly in favor of a strong military, while Obama wants to continue cutting. I don’t follow your reasoning.

    “Not their defective and worse exports. Not their violations of copyright and trademark law.”

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  82. Daley Rocks–You don’t win by surrendering. If you’re a Republican in Mass–and to hear Romney tell it, a conservative Republican–but still enjoyed enough support to get elected, then fight the good fight: nominate first-rate conservative jurists, plead their case with the public, be very clear about the stakes, and make the Dems reject them, one by one. Romney didn’t do that. He favors comity over conviction–maybe because he has conviction in such short supply. I’ve voted for a lot of R’s like that (Ford, Bush 41, Dole, McCain) but it gets us nowhere, it makes me feel like shit, and I won’t do it again.

    [note: released from moderation. --Stashiu]

    Kevin Stafford (1d1b9e)

  83. “The absence of a Senate or gubenatorial race or any state wide issue in Illinois made a low turnout readily understandable, but the cheerleading for the “nobody is voting” narrative was pretty funny.”

    Comment by daleyrocks

    Yep, daley, agreed… that narrative is sadly funny, but sadder still is that some of our own team is so invested in cheering for it and seem to think it goes unnoticed.

    Colonel Haiku (5b963b)

  84. “Shorter Kevin–Yeah, we can afford to wait for 2016, no prob. Heck, four more years of Obama and Holder won’t be so bad. It’s only like 1460 days in the big scheme of things. Romney once appointed some bad judges–Obama appointed some really bad Supreme Court judges. It’s just 6 of one and half dozen of another. Yawn.”

    Comment by elissa

    yes, elissa, as some have mentioned, the stakes are far to high to take the moronic road of least resistance.

    Colonel Haiku (5b963b)

  85. 83. “the stakes are far to[o] high”

    These IL and CA citizens continue to talk as tho they speak for Amerikkka from the bowels of the Marxist gulag.

    You made your bed.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  86. not statesmen we need
    Santorum and Gingrich are
    carnival barkers

    Colonel Haiku (5b963b)

  87. the “Marxist gulag”
    or so sez the knucklehead
    from Smalleysota

    Colonel Haiku (5b963b)

  88. gary – Give ex-Governor Ventura my best.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  89. he is entitled
    to his share of happiness
    and stinkin’ thinkin’

    Colonel Haiku (5b963b)

  90. 86. Here’s Jay Cost on the subject:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-importance-post-office-republicans_634344.html?nopager=1

    The Vichy are nominating.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  91. Thankfully, Ventura is just some cadaverous wraith, but thanks to the likes of Arne Carlson, Governor
    Target, is still mucking up the place.

    andrea mitchell (230268)

  92. he’s going to die
    homeless and penniless
    wearing new sweater

    Colonel Haiku (5b963b)

  93. yumpin’ yiminy!
    Land of Hosers and Knobs and
    world famous Yohans

    Colonel Haiku (5b963b)

  94. 87. I returned to Woebegon following Jesse’s election.

    OTOH, I voted for Coleman on his accession to the Senate, and Constitution Party following his reversion to form. Then the State Supreme Court handed victory to the Fool.

    But I am glad Norm is retired, now a McBain consultant telling the truth that Obamacare repeal is improbable in a Romney Presidency.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  95. Yes, Tpaw is always saying what he wouldn’t say,
    ‘death panels’ ‘blood libel’ but he never get around to tell us what he will say.

    Of course, the lesson learned in Minnesota, by that crew was apparently the best way to shoehorn the likes of Murkowski,

    narciso (230268)

  96. once was “Waste of Space”
    Dad had new nickname for him
    now “Sir-Eat-A-Lot”

    Colonel Haiku (5b963b)

  97. My former Rep, Betty McCollum and other DFL ladies opposed the Franken nomination, and battled for retraction, but to no avail.

    Now I can hope that Michele will jump in 2014 to kick his azz. Coleman and Franken retired, all to the good.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  98. When mittens makes his move to the middle, to gain those fools, he will have lost anything right of center he has gained. Despite having Rubio as his v.p.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  99. sickofrinos will
    cast his principled vote for
    Barack Obama

    Colonel Haiku (5b963b)

  100. CalPers $1 Trillion underwater on ‘investment’ of defined benefits earning 7.5%. February tax revenues down 22.5% year-on-year and these jackazzes are laughing at MN which is in surplus this biennium?

    IL will probably beat CA to bankruptcy.

    Keep laughing.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  101. gulrud knows in heart
    easier to wear slippers
    than carpet whole world

    Colonel Haiku (5b963b)

  102. listen to gulrud
    should-ing all over himself
    what they say is true

    Colonel Haiku (5b963b)

  103. “People are responisble to move into districts where their vote matters.

    Hoping for change without actually doing something practical, talking without walking, is aiding and abetting the enemy.”

    gary – I hope you are practicing the interesting philosophy you preached at #38 quoted above. Do you have any words of wisdom for the poor working schlubs who don’t put politics #1 before family, education, jobs, housing, etc., and cannot necessarily follow your recommendation above? Or perhaps you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  104. Gary advocates self-gerrymandering I guess.

    elissa (8a85cd)

  105. 97. I really like Rubio, but this next four year stretch does not bode well for a ‘manage the decline’ administration.

    Global economic reset by November is looking 50:50. It could be a disaster for a weak executive.

    Rubio could end like another Mondale.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  106. Who’s the real conservative? Ask Senator Toomey…

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/03/23/real-conservative-ask-toomey-santorum-romney/

    Colonel Haiku (5b963b)

  107. Who was running the NRSC at the time, Dole, right, followed by Ensign, who was the absolute nadir.

    narciso (230268)

  108. 102, 103. I went to school and owned a home in Blue districts, I just didn’t stay.

    But the point isn’t that everyone can leave IL or CA, tho they are bleeding businesses and population.

    The point is that ‘the lesser of two evils’ is still evil. The game isn’t over just because one avenue, one door is closed, that of a real victory in a two party contest.

    I, for one, would have taken three or four of the options you all rejected. It’s not my fault you had to have the option unsuitable to those with the electoral votes.

    Civi disobedience, open conflict, natural or unnatural death, you-tube candidacy, military coup, government shutdown, etc., are still options.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  109. Haley Barbour was on Laura a couple mornings back. He voted for Neutron on the basis of their long friendship but said:

    “We have to trust the voters”.

    Kicking and screaming isn’t going to change the fact, the voters can’t and won’t agree. Talking about Santorum or Romney as a live option is pointless.

    They aren’t. Time to look outside the GOP or to a shadow government or obstruction or…

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  110. 108… Morris Day and the Black Helicopter Time… from Smalleysota!

    Colonel Haiku (cac7c9)

  111. “I went to school and owned a home in Blue districts, I just didn’t stay.”

    gary – I am emailing you a gold star for your forehead, ya big galoot!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  112. “Civi disobedience, open conflict, natural or unnatural death, you-tube candidacy, military coup, government shutdown, etc., are still options.”

    gary – Long happy hour tonight?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  113. Gary G. are you a fisherman? That is what I’d be into if’n I lived up there. Big time.

    Colonel Haiku (cac7c9)

  114. Gary advocates self-gerrymandering I guess.
    Comment by elissa — 3/23/2012 @ 6:05 pm

    – Santorum will outlaw that.

    Icy (b60639)

  115. All Santorum said was that he was the Choice not the Echo. He did not say Obama was the preferential candidate. This more of an attempt by the pro-Romney/anti-Santorum to shake the Etch-a-Sketch. There’s more truth than many pro-Romneyites dare face. Obama and his crew have created a Potemkin recovery. If they lose, it’ll be incredibly easy to kick the props from the economy while heading out the door. The spin that the economy was recovering under Obama will be in place before the new President is inaugurated. In fact, for at least the first two years, the Democrats are in much better shape if Obama loses. If Romney governs like he did in Mass, it’ll be meet the new boss same as the old boss. I imagine Obama will try and come back in 2016 but I imagine Dems will trade him in for someone who can actually govern rather than someone who’s gubenatorial style is a cross between a tinhorn dictator and a legislator that always votes present.

    Fear The Same (73a8a0)

  116. FTS, the days of Grover Cleveland are long gone. There will be no Obama 2016 campaign.

    Icy (b60639)

  117. Colonel- I am a team player, I will vote mittens, I will just kick and scream all the way. I can’t help you intellectual snobs read the tea leaves on mittens. I just don’t want you elites blaming the true conservatives for losing this election. It really is the republicans fault, that there is so few conservatives. Mittyboy is a collective dolt as are most republicans. The r party is coming to an end. Either it Mans up or it swims with the cod.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  118. I just don’t want you elites blaming the true conservatives for losing this election.

    – If enough “true conservatives” stay home, better prepare for some blame.

    Icy (b60639)

  119. Do the elites ever make a effort to praise or say anything good about conservatives? Never, we are told to vote this way, and like it. Soon, your cult of republican collectivism will die an ugly death.
    I pitty the people who bought your stock.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  120. Not sure if he heard. Perhaps it’s only “the voices” that register.

    Icy (b60639)

  121. Republican strategy- Herd the sheep and watch them vote.
    If you republicans win with mitty, are you prepared for the conservative voice to bash the hell out of him, when he shows his no tolerance for conservative governing. Or will you whine like the primaries?

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  122. Yep. It’s the voices.

    Icy (b60639)

  123. I know it is early, and being a dolt myself, explain the voices.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  124. I hear crickets.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  125. sickofrinos, are you interested in engaging in conversation?

    Icy (b60639)

  126. Sure- give it to me.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  127. Look, kick and scream all the way if that’s how you feel; just realize that it might be more productive to actively support the nominee. A step in the right direction is just that — a step in the right direction. While he may be far from your ideal candidate, he’s still far better then the guy he’ll be running against.

    Icy (b60639)

  128. 114. Willard the ‘inevitable’, indeed.

    The Senate looks to go GOP with a slight margin. This will mean a handful of RINOS will control the cameras–Gang of 14 all over again.

    McVain, Coburn, Brown, Corker, Graham, Collins, et al. Read ‘em an weep.

    Sicko’s vote will count in MA, Icy’s in AZ but Blue states in the main are not in contention even tho that was the whole argument for Willard, that he attracted Indies and Reagan Democrats.

    It was a fraud from the start. The one and only ticket is, was, and will be, the base without a Reagan, Lincoln or Palin who can actually communicate.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  129. On what to do if the antiChrist wins again:

    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/22/10819081-christians-raise-400-to-help-ailing-atheist-who-railed-against-their-nativity

    Shooting isn’t the only option.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  130. ==Do the elites ever make a effort to praise or say anything good about conservatives? Never, we are told to vote this way, and like it. Soon, your cult of republican collectivism will die an ugly death==

    ==If you republicans win with mitty, are you prepared for the conservative voice to bash the hell out of him==

    With all due respect I find these statements addressed to you people to be quite remarkable. Perhaps that is because (apparently unlike the author of the above comments) I do not have a divining rod which allows me to know with certainty who “you republicans”, the “elites”, or “true conservatives” are or what they think from merely scanning others’ hurried words posted on the internet.

    I do think it’s fair to say that (with only a few obvious exceptions) people who post on Patterico have overall been less than thrilled with the entire R primary field of candidates. For many of us there are concerns about, and flaws in, every single one of them that give us pause. For some of us the candidate we could have most enthusiastically supported chose to not even run or self-immolated early in the process. So now we are left with who we are left with–and Barack Obama. These are the facts we are dealing with today. Four more years of Barack Obama in the WH is not the preferred option for many of us.

    What I mean is that most rational right-leaning people are ultimately concluding that their decision to vote at all–or whom to vote for in 2012 (even if reluctantly) *does* matter to our country’s future both short and long term. Self identified zealots, off-the-political-griders (or perhaps mobys) try to make a much different case.

    elissa (ea306b)

  131. 130. The sentiments expressed seem reasonable but abstract and on reflection could be held by people on the several sides of the Right divide.

    Again, “you people”, ‘conservative’, etc., are too vague to make identification reliable.

    Whereas, ‘you republicans’ at least refers to a body of identifiable individuals without overtones I use the pejorative ‘Big Tent Libtard’ as an insult, just as ‘true conservatives’ is intended and ‘rational right-leaning’.

    Suasion, however, involves neither the purposely vague or deliberately divisive identifiers. Their use is reserved for propaganda or polemics respectively, the latter which I freely admit to.

    gary gulrud (d88477)

  132. “What I mean is that most rational right-leaning people are ultimately concluding that their decision to vote at all–or whom to vote for in 2012 (even if reluctantly) *does* matter to our country’s future both short and long term. Self identified zealots, off-the-political-griders (or perhaps mobys) try to make a much different case.”

    Comment by elissa

    Yes! Time to get real!

    Colonel Haiku (bd479c)

  133. ______________________________________________

    Second point: Even in the unlikely event that Romney is (uncharacteristically) telling the truth about the jurists he’d look for, it’s always a crapshoot at best.

    You’re correct, but that merely underscores just how desperate the situation is right now.

    We’re facing the possibility of 4 more years of an ultra-liberal sitting in the White House, a guy who could have a ton of bricks (labeled “common sense”) fall on him and still wouldn’t cause him to budge one inch towards the center, much less towards the right. With President “Goddamn America,” it’s an absolute certainty that any nominee for the Supreme Court will be a leftist, no matter what.

    With Romney, there’s at least some chance that, should he feel like being a “centrist” (which, by the way, would be a liberal in the context of, say, 60 years ago) in various matters, particularly when choosing a jurist for the top court, that outside forces can push and prod him to be more conservative.

    Mark (31bbb6)

  134. 130- Sorry my statements are not what your looking for. I don’t need any one else’s opinions to state how I feel. Perhaps there are others who seem disgusted that I am not a rhode scholar, but my vote will be as important as yours. 45 years of voting and I have never belonged to either party. And never will. They truly miss the point liberty.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  135. of liberty.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  136. I voted for Charlie Crist, for reasons that now pass understanding, except the alternative was
    Gallagher and he had been ubiqitous over a twenty
    year period.

    narciso (6b342a)

  137. I voted for Charlie Crist, for reasons that now pass understanding, except the alternative was
    Gallagher and he had been ubiqitous over a twenty
    year period.

    Comment by narciso

    I didn’t know that watermelon-throwin’ dude had his hat in the ring. Awesome!

    Colonel Haiku (bd479c)

  138. ==45 years of voting and I have never belonged to either party. And never will==

    Geez. Thanks for clearing that up. Perhaps you’ll forgive any others of us who saw your moniker “sickofrinos” and read your comments and constructive criticism somewhat differently. Sadly, it appears that you may not have even tried to fix things from within the party that leans right. OK then. Never mind. But do keep yelling at the ump from the bleachers.

    elissa (ea306b)

  139. 28 years of voting while not belonging to either party, here. The difference? Rather than waste my time by complaining that “He’s not conservative enough!” I will instead be whole-heartedly supporting the right-leaning candidate.

    Icy (b60639)

  140. In the primary, I support the most conservative candidate who has made him/herself available.
    In the general, anyone to the right of a Marxist (which defines the current RW of the Progressive Party).

    AD-RtR/OS! (caa8c3)

  141. 138- When the bleachers are empty, who needs umps?
    My wife, daughters and myself have did plenty of grunt work for the republican party over the years. In 3 states. So no need in lecturing me about effort for the cause. My patience for bad umpiring is over. My vote is all I will give.

    sickofrinos (44de53)

  142. Just read Rick explained he did not intend to come across as preferring Obama. His comment was hyperbole (And shows a lack of polish), but I think it’s obvious he is telling the truth that he would prefer any Republican to Obama. His point, though exaggerated, is a valid one, of course. Romney, the likely nominee, needs to have his feet held to the fire on this. This Etch a Sketch prediction must prove wrong. There’s a lot more at stake than just the next election.

    Dustin (330eed)

  143. “… I know Mitt Romney. I know he wants to defeat Barack Obama. You know what? Mitt Romney knows Rick Santorum, and he knows the same thing. This is the kind of low, gutter politics that’s really beneath a presidential campaign. Let’s keep it on the issues of what’s important for our country. Let’s keep is focused on who’s going to be the best person to go out there and win this election, and why you’re the best candidate, instead of trying to spin, you know, remarks that are clearly being taken out of context.”

    - Rick Santorum, as he quickly dropped his Etch-A-Sketch® to the ground

    Colonel Haiku (bd479c)

  144. 22.5 point margin of victory in LA. Crawfish and sweater-vests!

    Icy (838f58)

  145. Dustin, knows that sometimes the party offers us blanc mange candidates like Martinez or worse like
    Crist, likewise you get the likes of Clayton Williams, who was a whole other ‘cat on a hot tin roof’

    [note: fished from spam filter. --Stashiu]

    narciso (cf7360)

  146. Rick sucks head and eats tail!

    Colonel Haiku (0ee692)

  147. South secedes again
    Rick Santorum has a chance
    to be President!

    Colonel Haiku (0ee692)

  148. SF: (Romney’s complaint about China is:

    “Not their military build-up, which Obama has at least taken notice of (the problem is he seems to want a military that can only contain China and nothng else) Not their nuclear proliferation.Not heir human rights record or support of dictators. Not their cyber-spying.”

    Comment by daleyrocks — 3/23/2012 @ 4:29 pm

    Sammy – Are any of the above new issues? Are any of the below also new issues?

    You mean only new issues are worth mentioning? These are ongoing things, with examples that come up from time to time, and cyber-spying is actually a bit new.

    Would you say trade is directly related to currency manipulation?

    Yes, but trade issues are not the big problem with China. And if you talk about trade issues, I’d worry more about poisons, or defective products both made very much easier and likely by the censorship and lack of freedom in China, or attempts to create monopolies, or stealing f technology.

    Currency manipulation is a nice safe normal issue, like we might have even with a justly governed country. You don’t have to be evil to engage in that. It seems like Romney doesn’t view the government of China as evil and capable of doing great wrong.

    The Democrat counterpart to worrying about the currency is China as a source of greenhouse gases. Also harmless, consistent with not being wicked. Wickedness, and whether it remains contained or maybe uncontained, however, is the real problem

    Social conservatives probably have their own issues with China. Forced abortions and family planning, executions timed for transplant operations, persecution of religions. None of these are I think mentioned by Romney.

    Romney has actually come out firmly in favor of a strong military, while Obama wants to continue cutting. I don’t follow your reasoning.

    He may be slightly better on the military if the money isn’t wasted. But he also may be inclinclined to make deals with China, trust them, not pressure them or ignore them.

    Now you can also watch the transition in China and hope it goes one way.

    SF: “Not their defective and worse exports. Not their violations of copyright and trademark law.”

    And there’s more. Even with trade issues they are more important than the value of the currency, where our on;y real problem is that once enough monopolies are gained, it will rise. You thnk doesn’t at some point want raise the value of its currency. China wants to replace the U.S. Dollar as a reserve currency, that’s what the government of China wants for its currency. They’ve even said so. And they prefer the Euro to the Dollar.
    This is all for political reasons.

    But too many people understand the political and legal unreliability of China.

    Sammy Finkelman (ea9037)

  149. Crawfish and sweater-vests!

    Comment by Icy

    heh

    I’m a fan of both, for the record.

    Dustin (330eed)

  150. Comment by Icy — 3/24/2012 @ 12:51 am

    FTS, the days of Grover Cleveland are long gone. There will be no Obama 2016 campaign.

    Obama 2032 or 2036 is more likely, as the divided or disprited Democratic Party turns to an elder statesman, more conservative than he once was, who can constitutionally serve only one term as
    president….

    Ford was sort of considered in 1980. Jimmy Carter was 56 when he lost in 1980. Obama would be only 51 enough time for a couple of comeback possibilities. Taft was 55, but he was not acceptable to large parts of the Republican Party and only won the nomination because he controlled patronage particularly in the Solid South and wasn’t really interested in the presidency, and eventually was appointed to the office he preferred Chief Justice of the United States. Herbet Hoover was 58 when he lost the presidency and in fact did attempt a bit of a comeback in 1936, but he’d lost decisively in 1932. George Bush the Elder was 68 and it was kind of time to retire from politics.

    Even losing candidates don’t get the nomination again. Dewy did (1944 and aheavily contested convention in 1948) Adlai Stevenson did 1952 and 1956 because there really wasn’t anybody else in 1956 – he also hoped in 1960. Richard Nixon did, in 1968, after losing in 1960, but he had to do it on his own and it wasn’t the next election.

    Since then no losing Presidential candidate of a major political party has ever been renominated.

    The losing V.P candidate almost always tries, since Sargent Shriver, but never never goes far. Dole (1976) finally did get the presidential nomination in 1996 but his being the vice presidential nominee in 1976 was not much of a factor.

    Sammy Finkelman (ea9037)

  151. Say Goodnight, Newt…

    http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/53334

    Colonel Haiku (b7cf0d)

  152. Sure thing, Sammy. He’ll run again when he’s 71 or 75 years old.

    You be sure to say “I told you so,” when that happens, K?

    Icy (5c3322)

  153. Not to bash Romney, but those candidates who couldn’t beat him probably should just bow out of future contests. I mean, seriously. They missed that USA Today 2009 column. They were annoying in debates. They were not up to the task.

    We’ve got a host of new blood from the 2010 elections that will do a better job.

    Dustin (330eed)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5731 secs.