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

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.

A Mark Block report!

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

― lag∞n, Friday, February 10, 2012 9:28 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

backtracking a little, but lagoon OTM. we need to be aware that in the eyes of many americans, republican and otherwise, this isn't about contraception at all, isn't even about liberal vs conservative policy. it's about religious freedom, the idea that religious institutions might be forced to forfeit their core values in order to satisfy a government mandate, however well-intentioned that mandate might be.

although i personally believe that contraceptives and reproductive health care should be made easily available to all women, regardless of their ability to pay, the attempt to force catholic hospitals and universities (for example) to directly pay for such things strikes me as a terrible miscalculation on the part of the obama administration. they should have realized that the backlash would be enormous, even among democrats, and that it would only play into the narrative of oppressive government overreach that republicans are attempting to construct.

as I'm sure has been noted somewhere on this thread, there are several states (CA and NY at least) who have laws mandating just such a policy, and there were no problems with it

state vs fed: BIG difference where the defenders of religious freedom are concerned. i mean, how often do you hear anyone complaining abt the "tyranny" of states' rights?

They don't -- why, the GOP LOVES states rights! And those chickens continue coming home to roost on the gay marriage front bit by bit...

Anyway per Shakey's point, this story today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/nyregion/catholic-institutions-reluctantly-comply-with-ny-contraceptives-law.html

Also they've already got Keegan's buy-in, as with Obamacare as a whole. But frankly, more than anything else, this strikes as a kind of dare -- potentially interesting -- that says "Hey, could you all just stop pretending you DON'T use birth control?" The hairs being split here between 'ignore the rule but respect the institution' are fine and I admit I look at it from a very outside perspective but I admit I'm tired of the doublethink. (Not that there's not plenty of that to go around on just about everything/anything from all political and social angles, obv.)

shakey's point taken, though. for the sake of clarity, i should have said "federal mandate" and "oppressive federal overreach" in that last post.

state vs fed: BIG difference where the defenders of religious freedom are concerned. i mean, how often do you hear anyone complaining abt the "tyranny" of states' rights?

how many ppl of color do you listen to

i'm not really arguing with the right people, but i find this argument to be really screwed up on even a theological level

conscience and "core values" are individual and not institutional qualities (lol i sound like a protestant don't i)

haha I was gonna say

it's about religious freedom, the idea that religious institutions might be forced to forfeit their core values in order to satisfy a government mandate, however well-intentioned that mandate might be.

I think if they want to continue treating people as if they have fewer rights & choices than the general population, they are welcome to only hire observant Catholics. Oh, you can't staff an ENTIRE HOSPITAL OR SCHOOL SYSTEM with nuns and observant laypeople in good standing with the Church? Then hire "normals" and observe the laws.

You out-of-touch fucking lunatics.

Lindsey Beyerstein painfully OTM here:

The Obama administration struck an elegant compromise over birth control coverage under health care reform. When religious employers refuse to pay for contraception, their insurance companies will have to step up and cover the cost of birth control for those employees.

The scheme works because birth control save money. If you were an flinty-eyed insurer, which group would you rather insure? People with guaranteed access to free birth control, or people without? Of course, you'd rather insure the folks with birth control coverage because they're less likely to get pregnant and have babies, which would cost you a lot more than the birth control. You could give away the birth control and still come out ahead.

Of course, just because birth control is relatively cheap doesn't mean it's free. It costs about $21.40 to add birth control pills, IUDs, and other contraceptives to an insurance plan. That money is going to have to come from somewhere.

It's unlikely the insurers will simply eat the cost and the whole point of the compromise was to avoid passing the cost on to consumers. So, the money will probably come out of premiums paid by everyone (including religious employers) or out of premiums paid by non-religious employers only.

Already Catholic special interests are objecting to funding contraception out of overall premiums because that means they're funding contraception indirectly. This kind of intransigence illustrates how foolish it was to try to compromise with this constituency in the first place. They are professionally unreasonable.

Compromise is illusory because these guys are doing spiritual accounting, they are not constrained by generally accepted accounting principles. They will make up the rules to get the result they want, namely, "We're being oppressed by your birth control!"

The U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops hates the fact that any woman might get free birth control under health reform. No matter how this program is administered, the sophists at the USCCB will come up with a sob story about how they are being oppressed by our contraception cooties. We live in a highly interdependent society with complex organizations and multiple intersecting streams of public and private money. If you're creative enough, you can always figure out why a dollar somebody else spends on birth control is tainting you.

You out-of-touch fucking lunatics pedos.

fixed