2012 republican presidential nominee III: can romney get santorum out of his hair?

I think you're mixing up two uses of the word 'can.' No one can (is able to) predict anything with certainty in the future bc anything could happen: war, alien war, sabretooth alien tiger war, jamba juice declares independence from the US <-- anything could happen! However, anyone can (is allowed to) predict anything because who the fuck cares? xxp

Erick Erickson: sad man in him room

there's a big difference between 'we can predict the economy' and 'we can extrapolate from trends'. there are positive economic trends. they are not strong enough to say 'this will absolutely be a great year' and anyone who says that is just guessing. but they are strong enough to say this month will very likely have positive job growth'.

there's a big gap betweenn 'nobody knows exactly how the economy works' and 'everyone knows literally nothing about how the economy works'. I can guarantee you that there will not be 20% inflation this year. does that mean I am a genius who can predict how the economy works? no, it just means that based on everything we've seen in the history of the world it would be extremely unlikely that there was 20% inflation this year.

anyway back on subject santorum pullin in dough:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/02/santorums-two-million-dollar-days-back-to-back.html

I gather Romney's newest attack ads portray Santorum as a slick, money-hungry Washington guy. However creepy you find Santorum on a whole range of things, that particular line of attack seems like a real stretch. Romney seems to tunnel a little bit deeper every time he's in a corner.

i didn't think contraception was controversial in 2012

maybe the evagelicals can propose an anti-witch amendment to the constitution, just to really make the parallels with gambia stand out

@clemenza: hahaha, wow, that's amazing if so, if I was Romney I would really not be bringing up "money-hungry" as a campaign issue. And nobody in the GOP field at this point can be plausibly described as "slick"; Romney looked like he'd be that guy but he's actually remarkably bumbling and clumsy. Somebody page Chevy Chase.

but ppl like Shakey are already predicting a landslide for O

I don't think I ever predicted a landslide per se (it's not gonna be Reagan in '84) but the GOP doesn't have a prayer imho. I stand by this prediction.

I was just thinking about how silly that seemed in terms of Andy- Hardy/sweater-vest Santorum, but you're right, it becomes surreal when it's Romney launching such an attack.

so is it really looking like they're going to cave / waffle on contraception??

yah santorums got zero moneys compared to romney

It could be a landslide. For either party.

"Artificial" contraception is a sin in Catholic dogma, so is all sex outside of marriage.

maybe thats what it means tho he doesnt have money but he wants it, how gouache

it's kinda amazing when someone w/ santorum's character is a successful ('successful') poiltician to begin with. he's like someone's picked on little brother. was the super bowl just the beginning? is this the year of the twerpy lil brother?

Although the Cat'lick bishops played this well (they've built opposition for months), this "issue" won't, no pun intended, convert anyone. These are Catholics who weren't going to vote for the president anyway.

It's sort of amazing that both of the leads in the GOP race right now represent archetypes that, I thought, almost everybody sort of instinctively hates: twerpy, strident little fuckfaces convinced they're way more compelling and interesting than they are, and doofy rich dads convinced they're way more cooler and more popular than they are.

I think I got ahead of myself--it's not an ad, it's a banner that Romney's got up on his site.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/-4.jpg

Not particularly noteworthy (though still wide of the mark, I'd say).

my guess is O's compromise is just meant as a palliative to bury the issue and hope the public's attention gets diverted to something else shortly

that being said it's still a stupid/unnecessary compromise

Ideally, Romney would be able to cut an ad that says, "It's 2012, but for Rick Santorum it's still 1952," followed by points A, B, C, D, all the way throught to Q. But he can't.

the compromise isnt much of one from what's being said now they've just moved the onus to provide contraceptives from the employer to the insurer - the result is exactly the same

yeah i don't see how that is going to stop republicans from say the govt is forcing all our daughters to have casual sex

you'd think standing up for contraception would be a vote-winner in the general but i guess the polls are telling them otherwise, which is a kind of o_O thought

santorum doesn't sell as a slick washington insider because he doesn't seem like someone who could have been invited to any insidery discussions or lobbyist dinner party, it would just be awkward, 'who invited that dude?'

lots of the gop primary voters are pretty cool w/ the idea of going back to 1952

i like how this thread title has swung from relevance to historical curiosity and back again in the space of like a month

lots of the gop primary voters are pretty cool w/ the idea of going back to 1952

Definitely--that's why I say he can't.

you'd think standing up for contraception would be a vote-winner in the general but i guess the polls are telling them otherwise, which is a kind of o_O thought

I...don't think that's surprising? Maybe I don't expect much besides a pulse from middle-of-the-country "values voters" conservatives.

considering something like 98% of Catholics use birth control (as ref'd upthread) it's a little ridiculous/hypocritical/self-loathing

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/the-bettors-case-for-santorum/

nate silver gives santorum a pretty fair chance

some digmatists are still fine with do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do

Eisenhower looks pretty liberal next to Santorum

yeah it's not we're talking about abortion here, it's like..... condoms are controversial in 2012????

you'd think standing up for contraception would be a vote-winner in the general but i guess the polls are telling them otherwise, which is a kind of o_O thought

― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Friday, February 10, 2012 12:18 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the distinction here is forcing religious institutions like universities or w/e to do something that goes against their beliefs, lots people don't like the gov meddling in that stuff, churches for instace already had an exemption, and imo seeing as the compromise accomplishes the original objective its prob a good move

life begins at conception, not at kabooey.

kablooey w/out an intention for conception was also a sin last I checked

Yeah, like the David Frum article in the US Politics says, phrasing it as religious freedom is a) the only chance they have to make it stick because everyone loves contraception and b) indefensible horseshit.

Planned Parenthood was okay with it:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/statement-cecile-richards-president-planned-parenthood-federation-america-obama-administration-38755.htm

everythings cool, free baby proofing for all, republicans are horrible, lets move on

abortions for some, tiny american flags for others

next!

Yeah, like the David Frum article in the US Politics says, phrasing it as religious freedom is a) the only chance they have to make it stick because everyone loves contraception and b) indefensible horseshit.

― Andrew Farrell, Friday, February 10, 2012 11:33 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ISWYDT

maybe they could compromise with an IUD in the shape of a cross

Sorry if this has been posted already, I'm in and out:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/rasmussen-tracking-obama-with-ten-point-lead-over?ref=fpb

That's eye-opening, especially a Rasmussen poll. No, I don't think it means much this far out. But I do think it...hastens panic, and then all sorts of fun ensues.

IDSWIDT?

Hah, I didn't recognise the quote, and this is the top search result:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R7JmZ1q310

Yeah, like the David Frum article in the US Politics says, phrasing it as religious freedom is a) the only chance they have to make it stick because everyone loves contraception and b) indefensible horseshit.

― Andrew Farrell, Friday, February 10, 2012 11:33 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Sorry. I'll tell my little Beavis that he's excused for the rest of the day.

Self-loathing funnies!

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/02/is-2012-slipping-away-from-the-gop.php

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/02/blaming-the-victim/

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/10/laying-the-blame-before-anything-is-lost/

wow that is an honest to pete freakout

Yeah, the Red State article Ned posted had some amazing comments, too. People seriously pining for Perry or even Cain to reenter the fray, or drafting Rubio, or fantasizing about a brokered convention chanting "Sarah" until she runs. And how they hate Fox News, and Ann Counleter, and now Hinderaker... Desperate times.

Counleter, wow. Coulter.

Yeah the amount of "Fox/Ann/NRO are RINO sellouts!" comments has exploded in recent months at all these places. They eat their own, indeed.

I couldn't resist clickin on the banner ad for this that said 'will enrage lefties who think only they can be funny'

wow that is an honest to pete freakout

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/FreakOut!.jpg/220px-FreakOut!.jpg

I try to seize every opportunity to post something that's more inspiring than what's actually under discussion.