View of Santorum

Posted by: itstarted

View of Santorum - 02/22/12 01:53 PM

Santorum is tuned in to Joe Sixpack.
!

idea
Posted by: Ted Remington

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 02:49 PM

Do you have the right link?
Posted by: itstarted

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 03:21 PM

sorry... ! was a little too subtle... frown

this kinda says the same thing...
link
Quote:
As increasing numbers of people identify themselves as independent voters -- independent of the major political parties, that is -- the essence of the Republican Party has distilled into a toxic brew of resentment, prejudice, anti-intellectualism and misogyny.


BTW... if you read the article, be sure to click on the last words, "man on dog".
Posted by: 2wins

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 04:17 PM

both articles are interesting reads, but nothing i didn't know about santorum. the problem, however, might be just how much people really know about the man. he is toxic and while daily kos says he would be the key to a democratic win next november, the risks are too high. i don't see mitt is a shoe-in either, but would say that given the two i would not be as afraid of future if mitt somehow pulled off a win. santorum is dangerous and i believe that checkers' post in another thread offering us the opening 15 minutes of the margaret atwood "Handmaiden's Tale," adapted to film says it all.
Posted by: Phil Hoskins

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 05:37 PM

Originally Posted By: itstarted
sorry... ! was a little too subtle... frown

this kinda says the same thing...
link
Quote:
As increasing numbers of people identify themselves as independent voters -- independent of the major political parties, that is -- the essence of the Republican Party has distilled into a toxic brew of resentment, prejudice, anti-intellectualism and misogyny.


BTW... if you read the article, be sure to click on the last words, "man on dog".

Oh my word. Well maybe it is time we had this debate openly. The percentage of people who think like Santorum seems to be declining and some see his candidacy as the last stand of moral Americans against the depravity of -- well, people like me.
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 06:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Phil Hoskins
Originally Posted By: itstarted
sorry... ! was a little too subtle... frown

this kinda says the same thing...
link
Quote:
As increasing numbers of people identify themselves as independent voters -- independent of the major political parties, that is -- the essence of the Republican Party has distilled into a toxic brew of resentment, prejudice, anti-intellectualism and misogyny.


BTW... if you read the article, be sure to click on the last words, "man on dog".

Oh my word. Well maybe it is time we had this debate openly. The percentage of people who think like Santorum seems to be declining and some see his candidacy as the last stand of moral Americans against the depravity of -- well, people like me.


People like you? Inteligent? Principled? Idealistic? I guess, since people with jobs are such an endangered species.

Santorum is not electable in today's America. He is too dedicated to an ideal that has vanished and will probably never return, and definately will not return in Nov. Now, I suppose that running against an unpopular Obama Santorum would have a chance, but Obama has never really been unpopular. His policies are unpopular and his record as POTUS is suspect at best, but Obama the man is still pretty popular and since any national election is part popularity contest and part liars poker, Santorum doesn't stand a chance, especially with Satan coming to America. ROTFMOL

I am not a Mitt guy, but he is the only candidate who can win a one on one against Obama in Nov, he will be the nominee because the alternative is unacceptable to the right leaners in America. The eventual nominee has to be able to win, that is the first qualification. Romney is flawed, and a bit of a turd, but he will win in Nov where every other candidate in the race are too flawed to even compete in the general election.
Posted by: Ted Remington

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 06:59 PM

I'll have what Ma_R is having.

The right wing "Christians" will stay home on election day or go for a third-party ticket. My money is on a third party. They will never vote for a cultist Mormon, which is how they view Romney and his religion. They will walk out in Tampa, form a Christian-oriented party, and deliver the final and unlamented death knell to the once Grand Old Party, now a rotting husk, hanging and twisting in the wind.
Posted by: 2wins

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 07:15 PM

wow, we have a lot of fortune tellers here today.
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 07:25 PM

Originally Posted By: churlpat lives
I'll have what Ma_R is having.

The right wing "Christians" will stay home on election day or go for a third-party ticket. My money is on a third party. They will never vote for a cultist Mormon, which is how they view Romney and his religion. They will walk out in Tampa, form a Christian-oriented party, and deliver the final and unlamented death knell to the once Grand Old Party, now a rotting husk, hanging and twisting in the wind.


You do not understand the downright hate felt toward Barack H Obama, and do not underestimate the opinion that getting rid of Obama is the most important issue facing America today. Hell, I live in Moonbat Central, home of the liberal and even here the most important issue on the slate of Republican issues is making Obama a one term POTUS. This election will come down to a simple question; "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?" If unemployment is still at 9% and gas is coming in at $4.00 and he is taking a beating for failing to produce a budget for the past three years... In short, because he is POTUS he stands a chance at being reelected, but right now it isn't a very good chance and the chances are getting smaller by the week. Polls are useless at this point in time, they reflect a sample of people who are true believers and who have invested mental capital in their selected champion. Come Nov, when the sh!t hits the fan and people are alone in the voting booth, the question will resonate in their mind, is today better than it was before Obama took office. Obama will, of course, try to blame Bush for all of his failures, but this is the Obama Economy and he will stand or fall with his results.

It will be an interesting election.
Posted by: AustinRanter

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 07:41 PM

And one of my personal favorites...a real election winning statement from Santorum:

There's no such thing as a LIBERAL CHRISTIAN....
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 07:51 PM

Originally Posted By: AustinRanter
And one of my personal favorites...a real election winning statement from Santorum:

There's no such thing as a LIBERAL CHRISTIAN....


As I said, what little chance Rick had was blown up by Satan coming to town. There is something about a candidate for POTUS attributing cause and effect to Satan that makes the average American rethink their preference. Besides, every Republican knows that Satan is already in the White House. ROTFMOL
Posted by: logtroll

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 07:53 PM

Ma_R, where do you live again?

"In 2012, bloggers and other social media participants began to identify Newt Gingrich with the term "moonbat" after he campaigned for colonizing the moon." (wikipedia)

Tough luck, dude, but sometimes the world moves you to the Left even when you think you are standing still.
Posted by: Greger

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 07:53 PM

Quote:
You do not understand the downright hate felt toward Barack H Obama, and do not underestimate the opinion that getting rid of Obama is the most important issue facing America today.
Now that's just silly. We have all understood that since day one.
You guys nearly melted down when it was proven to you that Republican Policies were not popular. That Christdogs like Palin could not pull in even enough votes to beat a Black Man.
That Romney, Giulliani, McCain, and all the rest could not put Humpty Dumpty together well enough to win the election.
After eight years of George Bush you still felt some entitlement to the whitehouse. After 12 years of corrupt Republican led Congresses you srttill couldn't believe that Americans might want something a little different. You'll see those gas prices tumble well before the general elections because OPEC doesn't want a Republican President either.
You speaak largely of a certain 30% of Americans who speak loudly and often. But when the other 70% weighs in on election day they are gonna be totally sick of the whole sordid Republican affair.
Me and a lot of other folks are much better off today than we were when Obama took office. You and your party has done everything in it's power to make America fail so Obama could be blamed for it.
As long as we are all looking into our crystal balls here, my prediction is Obama by an unarguable margin and the TEA Party rookies sent home from the House.
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 08:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
You do not understand the downright hate felt toward Barack H Obama, and do not underestimate the opinion that getting rid of Obama is the most important issue facing America today.
Now that's just silly. We have all understood that since day one.
You guys nearly melted down when it was proven to you that Republican Policies were not popular. That Christdogs like Palin could not pull in even enough votes to beat a Black Man.
That Romney, Giulliani, McCain, and all the rest could not put Humpty Dumpty together well enough to win the election.
After eight years of George Bush you still felt some entitlement to the whitehouse. After 12 years of corrupt Republican led Congresses you srttill couldn't believe that Americans might want something a little different. You'll see those gas prices tumble well before the general elections because OPEC doesn't want a Republican President either.
You speaak largely of a certain 30% of Americans who speak loudly and often. But when the other 70% weighs in on election day they are gonna be totally sick of the whole sordid Republican affair.
Me and a lot of other folks are much better off today than we were when Obama took office. You and your party has done everything in it's power to make America fail so Obama could be blamed for it.
As long as we are all looking into our crystal balls here, my prediction is Obama by an unarguable margin and the TEA Party rookies sent home from the House.


Maybe, but in today's America most who are better off are on the public dole and those people traditionally do not vote. I will stand by my contention, and we shall see who is correct. I think you are getting excited about polling data taken in Feb and will be sorely disappointed in the polling held in Oct. Let's face it, the economy sucks and Obama's economic policy of blaming all on Bush has failed to stem the tide of his failure. If gas is at $4.00 and unemployment is at around 9% and Obama is still trying to blame the guy who left Washington 4 years earlier he doesn't stand a chance.
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 08:05 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Ma_R, where do you live again?

"In 2012, bloggers and other social media participants began to identify Newt Gingrich with the term "moonbat" after he campaigned for colonizing the moon." (wikipedia)

Tough luck, dude, but sometimes the world moves you to the Left even when you think you are standing still.


Massachusetts has been, and probably will always be, Moonbat Central. It will forever be home to every left wing, tree hugging, socialist who lives east of the Mississippi and north of New York. I have been calling it Moonbat Central for a couple of years now, because it it a much more descriptive and accurate name than the name Massachusetts.
Posted by: Greger

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 08:10 PM

Oh I haven't read any polling data. My prediction remains as it was well before the primaries even began.
Romney vs. Obama

Obama by a landslide.

TEA Party is dead.

My continuing analysis is that the Primary has been so vacuous and offensive that it will turn even more Independents(like me) against the Republican Party. If that turns out to be correct you guys are in serious trouble....... Hmm
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 08:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Ma Republican

Santorum is not electable in today's America. He is too dedicated to an ideal that has vanished and will probably never return, and definately will not return in Nov.
What ideal is that? When did it exist? As far as I can tell, Santorum is dedicated to ideals that never existed in America, well, at least not since the Salem witch trials, and certainly not since the United States came into existence. The US was not founded as a theocracy. Now, while it is true that women were not allowed to vote, and that slavery was enshrined in the Constitution, those were not constitutional values, but acquiescence to political and social realities. Fortunately, we as a nation and society have grown, sometimes painfully, past those anachronistic abominations. I pray we don't return to them. Rick Santorum is a functioning idiot, running on insanity. He should be locked in a padded room, and would, and has been, extremely dangerous with power. Kinda like giving a paranoid schizophrenic a loaded gun.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 08:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Ma_R, where do you live again?

"In 2012, bloggers and other social media participants began to identify Newt Gingrich with the term "moonbat" after he campaigned for colonizing the moon." (wikipedia)

Tough luck, dude, but sometimes the world moves you to the Left even when you think you are standing still.


Massachusetts has been, and probably will always be, Moonbat Central. It will forever be home to every left wing, tree hugging, socialist who lives east of the Mississippi and north of New York. I have been calling it Moonbat Central for a couple of years now, because it it a much more descriptive and accurate name than the name Massachusetts.


Hey man, it was just a friendly heads up. You keep using it and everbuddy will think you are a Gingrich man.

I think RR needs a predictions matrix so's we can keep track of who predicts what and who gits it right. Mebbee like a calendar with an automatic reminder of when the prediction is coming ripe. Mebbee a pool so's we can place bets and pretend it's part of the economy?

My view of Santorum (slick way to get back to the topic, wot?) is that he stays popular long enough amongst the straggling gaggle of Reep primary participants to continue to bedraggle Mitt. But come November, after only 10 or 12 Reeps show up to vote for the Really Rich Guy, the whole bunch of elefunks will be shoveling old-fashioned moonbat munoor in the donkey stables.
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 09:14 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Ma_R, where do you live again?

"In 2012, bloggers and other social media participants began to identify Newt Gingrich with the term "moonbat" after he campaigned for colonizing the moon." (wikipedia)

Tough luck, dude, but sometimes the world moves you to the Left even when you think you are standing still.


Massachusetts has been, and probably will always be, Moonbat Central. It will forever be home to every left wing, tree hugging, socialist who lives east of the Mississippi and north of New York. I have been calling it Moonbat Central for a couple of years now, because it it a much more descriptive and accurate name than the name Massachusetts.


Hey man, it was just a friendly heads up. You keep using it and everbuddy will think you are a Gingrich man.

I think RR needs a predictions matrix so's we can keep track of who predicts what and who gits it right. Mebbee like a calendar with an automatic reminder of when the prediction is coming ripe. Mebbee a pool so's we can place bets and pretend it's part of the economy?

My view of Santorum (slick way to get back to the topic, wot?) is that he stays popular long enough amongst the straggling gaggle of Reep primary participants to continue to bedraggle Mitt. But come November, after only 10 or 12 Reeps show up to vote for the Really Rich Guy, the whole bunch of elefunks will be shoveling old-fashioned moonbat munoor in the donkey stables.


I am actually pretty confident that the race will get much closer, that Mitt will be the nominee and that baring an unforeseen recovery/national emergency that Obama is in big trouble. I live in Moonbat Central, I am surrounded by liberals and socialists and worse, as if that were possible, and Obama is not a real popular guy even here. Now things could change, but after yesterday's proclamation that the devil is coming to take us away (ha ha), Rick's popularity has reached its maximum possible altitude. As for the rich guy, there is a real case to be made that a successful businessman is what is needed to drive America back to profitability. I wouldn't p!ss on Mitt Romney if he were on fire, but is the lone candidate in the race who can beat Barack. Forget that he is Mormon, forget that he is rich. He is competent and Obama has been proven not to be.

It all comes down to whose argument is better. Mitt will argue that the economy sucks and lay it at the feet of Obama, Obama will argue that the mean Republicans in Congress wouldn't work with him and that it is all GW Bush's fault and that he really didn't know how bad it was going to be and that that $4T he added to the deficit really shouldn't count. Today Obama is making a comeback because the press is publishing fluf and the Republicans are focused on the presidential election. Eventually Congress will have to actually do something and everything turns upside down. The ammunition for Mitt to use in a debate is so plentiful that Mitt will have to decide what argument will be best for the situation.

Mr. President, why haven't you produced a budget in three years?
Mr President, explain to us again how food stamps are good for the economy.
Mr President, explain to us again how unemployment is good for the economy.
Mr President, $4.50 per gallon?
Mr President, explain again why you didn't support the Iranian citizens when they were protesting in the streets?
Mr.President, please explain to me why you didn't know that your administration was an international gun dealer?

Santorum is toast, there isn't anything he can do about it now.The view of Santorum will be seen in the rear view window.
Posted by: numan

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 09:22 PM

'
Originally Posted By: logtroll

I think RR needs a predictions matrix so's we can keep track of who predicts what and who gits it right.

My prediction is that global events this year will knock all this electoral fluff into the garbage bin of history.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 10:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
...
Mr. President, why haven't you produced a budget in three years?...


You lose.
2013 budget
2012 budget
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 10:49 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
...
Mr. President, why haven't you produced a budget in three years?...


You lose.
2013 budget
2012 budget


They are about as relevent as a budget I would produce. His party has refused to debate a budget, period. He is their leader, he has been silent in his wish for an official budget. By not having to sign a formal budget, he doesn't have to explain why he isn't following it.

Typical politician, typical liberal.
Posted by: Ted Remington

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 11:13 PM

And debating with a bunch of fools on the Republican side would have accomplished exactly what? Tim, in your heart of hearts you know that the Republicans in both the House and the Senate have done everything they could do destroy our country by refusing to cooperate, to play ball, or to compromise with anything anyone with a D after his or her name proposes. How many times have Cantor and Boehner said the President's agenda and budget are dead on arrival in the House?

You need to look at the reality of the situation. The Republicans are going down hard in November.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 11:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
...
Mr. President, why haven't you produced a budget in three years?...


You lose.
2013 budget
2012 budget


They are about as relevent as a budget I would produce. His party has refused to debate a budget, period. He is their leader, he has been silent in his wish for an official budget. By not having to sign a formal budget, he doesn't have to explain why he isn't following it.

Typical politician, typical liberal.

Ma_R,
Lookee here - this is what the process is: the President creates a budget that is submitted to Congress as a proposal. The President doesn't have a lot more influence until Congress passes a budget for him to sign. It's the job of the Congress to create the actual budget - how many budgets did the Congress put on the President's desk to sign? None. How many budgets did the Reeps stonewall into nothing? All of them.

I know, I know, we'll now hear about how the voters don't care about that, yadda, yadda, they'll blame Obama, skeezy, skeezy.

I think a good many voters do know who is responsible for no budgets passing, and they ain't a'gonna vote for the the Gang of NonCon Clowns, no matter how many fingers and toes you cross.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: View of Santorum - 02/22/12 11:33 PM

Ever notice how eerily similar Santorum and Sanitorium are?

Wikipedia
Quote:
Rick Santorum is the middle of the three children of Aldo Santorum (19232011), a clinical psychologist who immigrated to the United States at age seven from Riva del Garda, Italy,[16] and Catherine (Dughi) Santorum (1918), an administrative nurse

Crikey!!
Posted by: rporter314

Re: View of Santorum - 02/23/12 12:01 AM

Quote:
Obama is still trying to blame the guy who left Washington 4 years earlier

how can anyone take you seriously of you can't get the facts straight

Pres Obama is not blaming Pres Bush for current conditions but for the conditions when he took office ... if you can't see the difference then step back from the table and let the adults speak
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: View of Santorum - 02/23/12 02:43 AM

The real question at this point, is not who will win the presidential election. That's pretty much settled. It is which party will run The House.

Can the Democrats convince enough voters that Obama's various programs could get us out of recession quicker if there was not a majority of Republicans in The House blocking everything he proposes for partisan gain? They will have plenty of juicy quotes from Republicans saying they are doing exactly that. Can American voters follow a logical argument and connect cause and effect?

Or do we just elect "the good-looking guy" (my Mom's favorite criteria), or base our decisions on over-inflated icons like abortion, illegals, welfare queens, etc.
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: View of Santorum - 02/23/12 12:21 PM

Originally Posted By: churlpat lives
And debating with a bunch of fools on the Republican side would have accomplished exactly what? Tim, in your heart of hearts you know that the Republicans in both the House and the Senate have done everything they could do destroy our country by refusing to cooperate, to play ball, or to compromise with anything anyone with a D after his or her name proposes. How many times have Cantor and Boehner said the President's agenda and budget are dead on arrival in the House?

You need to look at the reality of the situation. The Republicans are going down hard in November.



Can we be honest here, for just a moment?

It is the responsibility of Congress to produce a budget, debate a budget and pass a budget. The President can either sign or veto that budget, but having a hard time passing one is not an acceptable reason for not debating and producing one. The reality of the situation is that by not debating a budget both sides get political cover.

I do not care that Obama will look bad if a budget is passed and he blows it out of the ater. I do not care if the eventual budget gets so reworked that it looks like the Kremlin's budget circa 1958, what I want is for Congress and the White House to do their f'ing jobs. Obama has the soap box, he has the bully pulpit, if he wanted a budget passed all he would have to do is use what he has to highlight what he never recieved. He has been silent to date about the lack of an official budget, and the fiction he has floated in the press hasn't even been followed by his administration.

I live in a budget, so do you and so does every other American. The government should be compelled to produce a budget and live within it every year, making excuses about it being too hard to pass one is just dumb. We hire them to do the heavy lifting, that is their job and that is what we should expect.

OK, back to the back stabbing
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: View of Santorum - 02/23/12 12:26 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
...
Mr. President, why haven't you produced a budget in three years?...


You lose.
2013 budget
2012 budget


They are about as relevent as a budget I would produce. His party has refused to debate a budget, period. He is their leader, he has been silent in his wish for an official budget. By not having to sign a formal budget, he doesn't have to explain why he isn't following it.

Typical politician, typical liberal.

Ma_R,
the President creates a budget that is submitted to Congress as a proposal.


Actually, the way it used to work when a budget was actually produced, was the President would create a budget, and the House would then tell him to stuff it and produce their own budget. Since all spending bills start in the House, they are responsible for the budget, the President's budget is a wish list and has traditionally been used as toilet paper.

If Obama wanted a budget produced, all he had to do is ask for one to be produced. He hasn't and the Senate has decided that it is easier to not produce a budget than it is to do their job.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: View of Santorum - 02/23/12 12:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican

Mr. President, why haven't you produced a budget in three years?...

the President creates a budget that is submitted to Congress as a proposal.

Actually, the way it used to work when a budget was actually produced, was the President would create a budget, and the House would then tell him to stuff it and produce their own budget. Since all spending bills start in the House, they are responsible for the budget, the President's budget is a wish list and has traditionally been used as toilet paper.

If Obama wanted a budget produced, all he had to do is ask for one to be produced. He hasn't and the Senate has decided that it is easier to not produce a budget than it is to do their job.

Ummmm.... so you agree with me. Except you think that the President can create a budget simply by asking Congress to do it's job? Let's go back to your original statement, "Mr. President, why haven't you produced a budget in three years?"

Because, "...all spending bills start in the House, they are responsible for the budget..."

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong on this one.

I'm sure Santorum can do better.
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: View of Santorum - 02/23/12 12:48 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
The real question at this point, is not who will win the presidential election. That's pretty much settled. It is which party will run The House.

Can the Democrats convince enough voters that Obama's various programs could get us out of recession quicker if there was not a majority of Republicans in The House blocking everything he proposes for partisan gain? They will have plenty of juicy quotes from Republicans saying they are doing exactly that. Can American voters follow a logical argument and connect cause and effect?

Or do we just elect "the good-looking guy" (my Mom's favorite criteria), or base our decisions on over-inflated icons like abortion, illegals, welfare queens, etc.


What is with all the whining? Has your argument really come down to blaming the bullies in the House for all of Obama's failures?

Elections will always come down to the lowest common denominator. People elect other people because they do not want to worry about the world around them. They want to be fat, dumb and happy. They only want to worry about their own life. The President is in trouble. He is POTUS and can never be counted out, but he is in deep trouble with the electorate. Even if he can turn the argument around and convince enough people that he wasn't talented enough politically to pass his agenda, I am pretty sure people will not be sympathetic. Even if he can convince people people that he was naive about the actaul shape of the economy when he tood office, he has had four years and it has gotten worse.

This is what the election will come down to, Obama will say he is making progress and he needs more time. The Republican nominee will will aks if people are better off today than they were four years ago. Obama will insist that he was not treated fairly, the nominee will insist that excuses are like a-holes. Obama will point to Obamacare, the nation will throwup in their mouths.

Obama's only advantage is that he is the incumbant. He will also point out how unique America is to have elected an African-American (depending on the audience mind you) as President. Those are his advantages. The Republican will have unemployment, fuel prices, foreign policy and domestic policy to beat Obama over the head with. Can't you see it now.....

Obama: "I tried to pass <fill in the blank>, but the culture of Washington always got in the way.
Nominee: "Isn't it the job of the President to find a middle ground? Isn't it your job to act as the leader of the country, and not the leader of your party?"

Do not be lulled to sleep by a soft press, this election is going to be fun, haymakers will be thrown from every angle, upper cuts and jabs in every debate. In the end it will come down to the ability of Obama to convince America that he can succeed, where he failed during his first term. The nominee will have the advantage of not having a track record to run on. Hey, GW won reelection so it could happen, but I don't see a Karl Rove type running Obama's campaign and I don't see an overwhelming reason why people would want four more years of Obama. I have looked for the reasons, I have tried to find the reasons why my analysis is wrong, and I don't see it. Obama has a punchers chance in Nov, nothing more.
Posted by: Ted Remington

Re: View of Santorum - 02/23/12 12:52 PM

"Actually, the way it used to work when a budget was actually produced, was the President would create a budget, and the House would then tell him to stuff it and produce their own budget. Since all spending bills start in the House, they are responsible for the budget, the President's budget is a wish list and has traditionally been used as toilet paper.

"If Obama wanted a budget produced, all he had to do is ask for one to be produced. He hasn't and the Senate has decided that it is easier to not produce a budget than it is to do their job."

For starters, the Administration produced their proposed budget every year and sent it off to Congress, where the oh-so-accommodating Republicans declared it DOA and produced their own. But you said :If Obama wanted a budget produced, all he had to do is ask for one to be produced."

Whom was he supposed to ask? The Supreme Court? The Mamas and the Papas? The American public? The moneylenders in the temple?
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: View of Santorum - 02/23/12 12:52 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican

Mr. President, why haven't you produced a budget in three years?...

the President creates a budget that is submitted to Congress as a proposal.

Actually, the way it used to work when a budget was actually produced, was the President would create a budget, and the House would then tell him to stuff it and produce their own budget. Since all spending bills start in the House, they are responsible for the budget, the President's budget is a wish list and has traditionally been used as toilet paper.

If Obama wanted a budget produced, all he had to do is ask for one to be produced. He hasn't and the Senate has decided that it is easier to not produce a budget than it is to do their job.

Ummmm.... so you agree with me. Except you think that the President can create a budget simply by asking Congress to do it's job? Let's go back to your original statement, "Mr. President, why haven't you produced a budget in three years?"

Because, "...all spending bills start in the House, they are responsible for the budget..."

Thank you for admitting that you were wrong on this one.

I'm sure Santorum can do better.


Let's look at this for a moment. The house under Pelosi refused to produce a budget, outright said they would not. This House did produce a budget and the Senate refused to debate it.

Com'on you can do better than that argument.
Posted by: Ma_Republican

Re: View of Santorum - 02/23/12 12:58 PM

Originally Posted By: churlpat lives
"Actually, the way it used to work when a budget was actually produced, was the President would create a budget, and the House would then tell him to stuff it and produce their own budget. Since all spending bills start in the House, they are responsible for the budget, the President's budget is a wish list and has traditionally been used as toilet paper.

"If Obama wanted a budget produced, all he had to do is ask for one to be produced. He hasn't and the Senate has decided that it is easier to not produce a budget than it is to do their job."

For starters, the Administration produced their proposed budget every year and sent it off to Congress, where the oh-so-accommodating Republicans declared it DOA and produced their own. But you said :If Obama wanted a budget produced, all he had to do is ask for one to be produced."

Whom was he supposed to ask? The Supreme Court? The Mamas and the Papas? The American public? The moneylenders in the temple?


The only power that the President has to the ability to motivate America. He is really a figurehead, but if he went to one of his press conferences and stated "I want Congress to provide a budget. I want the House to produce a budget, I want the Senate to debate it and I want both houses to produce compromise and produce an official budget that I will sign."

This is a BS argument, and you know it. Politics says it is better for Obama not to have an official budget that he can be held accountable to, it would be the same for any President.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: View of Santorum - 02/23/12 01:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
...
This is a BS argument, and you know it. Politics says it is better for Obama not to have an official budget that he can be held accountable to, it would be the same for any President.

But Ma_R, it's your BS argument! You are arguing with yourself. You appear to be drowning in contrary rationalizations and refusing the life preservers thrown in your direction.

Might as well relax and go with the flow, the sharks have eaten you.