• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

US PoliGAF 2012 | The Romney VeepStakes: Waiting for Chris Christie to Sing…

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nutball Teabagger tries to Teabag Santorum About Obama, Santorum brushes it aside
Lady Lake, Florida (CNN) - During a town hall at an American Legion Hall here Monday afternoon, Rick Santorum was asked a question about President Obama's religion that's been a common refrain amongst certain Republicans going all the way back to 2008.

"I never refer to Obama as President Obama because legally he is not," the woman in the audience began. "He constantly says that our constitution is passé, and he ignores it as you know and does what he darn well pleases. He is an avowed Muslim and my question is, why isn't something being done to get him out of government? He has no legal right to be calling himself president."

Rather than disagreeing with the questioner or correcting her assertion by reminding her that President Obama is in fact a Christian, Santorum entirely ignored the more controversial parts of her question.

"Well look, I'm doing my best to get him out of the government right now," Santorum said. "And you're right about how he uniformly ignores the constitution. He did this with these appointments over the recess that was not a recess, and if I was in the United States Senate I would be drawing the line."

In talking about the constitutionality of the president's use of so-called "czars" to handle certain policies, Santorum even joked that the female questioner would "be the first czar I name," saying that promise should reassure the crowd that he wouldn't name any czars at all.

During the 2008 general election, John McCain was famously asked a similar question by a woman who called Obama "an Arab" at a Minnesota town hall, and he rejected the premise of her question.

"No ma'am," McCain said. "He's a decent, family man, citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."

During an interview with CNN Chief National Correspondent John King following the town hall, Santorum rejected the idea that it's his responsibility to disagree with supporters who call the president a Muslim.

"I don't feel it's my obligation every time someone says something I don't agree with to contradict them, and the President's a big boy, he can defend himself and his record and I'm going to go out and talk about the issues that the President and I disagree on and try to defeat him because I think that's the best thing that we can do for the future of our country," Santorum told King, in an interview for CNN's "John King USA."

When reminded of McCain's decision to publically reject such claims in 2008, Santorum said he's done so in the past, but doesn't feel the need to continue to do so.

"I think I have repeated that many, many times over the course of this campaign," Santorum said, of his efforts to remind people that Obama is a Christian. "I don't really feel an obligation to go out and repeat it over and over again as people bring that up. My position is clear, the President's position is clear, I don't think the President's a Muslim, but I don't think it's my obligation to go out and repeat that every time someone who feels that way says something."
Click to expand...
I thought this birther bullshit was gone and an embarassment to Republicans. So slimy of Santorum to let the birther/OBAMA IS MUSLIN questions slide like that.
 
AlteredBeast said:
Always been for it. No joke. It is criminally stupid to think that they should be taxed otherwise.
Click to expand...

There could be a progressive tax on capital gains . . . that might be a decent system. It would give less fortunate people more of an incentive to save & invest but not allow the uber-wealthy to pay taxes at a lower rate than working stiffs.

And I believe Romney actually has some kind of variant of this idea in his plan. Obama should take a look at it . . . and co-opt it if it makes sense.
 
Dax01 said:
I remember some time ago that McCain denounced a similar question on the campaign trailer back in '08. Something about him being a Muslim or a birther issue, IIRC.
Click to expand...

It's mentioned in the article. Obama was called an Arab and McCain took the mic from the crazy old lady.
 
I called it for Gingrich a month ago and was wavering but I think he really does have it in the bag.
 
I just want to know how she came to believe Obama is an avowed Muslim. Not just a secret Muslim, but that he flaunts it. Does she just believe every chain email she gets, 100%? I wonder what they read like.

"Obama read from the Koran at the SOTU speech, and then laughed maniacally at the Christians in the crowd."
 
Clevinger said:
I just want to know how she came to believe Obama is an avowed Muslim. Not just a secret Muslim, but that he flaunts it. Does she just believe every chain email she gets, 100%? I wonder what they read like.

"Obama read from the Koran at the SOTU speech, and then laughed at the Christians in the crowd."
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, her views are solely determined by racism and nationalism. There may have been a slight reason for people to doubt Obama's birth status at one point and be honest, but there is absolutely none now.
 
I think people are forgetting that Gingrich still has 1) a money problem 2) an organizational problem 3) an endorsement problem. These are 3 very real deterrents from a candidate rising above his regional strength and carrying a national ticket.
 
ToxicAdam said:
I think people are forgetting that Gingrich still has 1) a money problem 2) an organizational problem 3) an endorsement problem. These are 3 very real deterrents from a candidate rising above his regional strength and carrying a national ticket.
Click to expand...

He's okay on that part for now. https://twitter.com/#!/2chambers/status/161582480409899008

Also, hopefully this Warren-Brown pact will provide an example of candidates coming together to limit outside spending. Not as good as legislation, but in the interim it'll do some good.
 
ToxicAdam said:
I think people are forgetting that Gingrich still has 1) a money problem 2) an organizational problem 3) an endorsement problem. These are 3 very real deterrents from a candidate rising above his regional strength and carrying a national ticket.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I don't think Gingrich will ultimately win it, especially when he gets out of the south, but this primary seems to be breaking all the assumed rules with things like Santorum rising up (ew) in a matter of days to snatch Iowa away from Romney, then the same thing with Gingrich with SC. Romney spent twice as much as Gingrich in SC, had like a million times the endorsements, had great organization, and he still lost to Newt a week after he was considered a sure thing.
 
I think what Gingrich is raising right now will be insufficient for Super Tuesday. I mean, it's much easier to get money and focus on one state at a time rather than multiple.
 
Amir0x said:
gonna be fun to watch tonight. Romney is going to try to go hard at Newt obviously. Problem for Romney is the attacks he will make are going to be so obvious, and Newt is clearly going to be prepped to soundbyte the fuck out of his responses. I can't wait to hear what outrageously aggressive but clearly factually inaccurate comment he makes in order to grab headlines the next day. Gonna be fun to see Romney scramble.
Click to expand...

What I'm hoping for is Romney trying to go for the jugular the way Gingrich did in the last debate, with gusto. But that's not his style; I think he'll fall on his face if he does that. If he gets into a shouting match with Newt, he loses. It will come off absolutely phoney. Hopefully hilariously so.
 
Invisible_Insane said:
Given the degree to which Gingrich's strength seems tied to the debates, I think it's possible that he might have performed better in Iowa if there has been a debate within two weeks of the election. There's another debate on Thursday, but after that, there will be no debates for nearly a month. I think that will be the true test of Gingrich's campaign; personally, I expect his support to recede between this debate and the next debate in Arizona.
Click to expand...
Right. I think the proximity of election day to the debates benefited him tremendously. There were over two intervening weeks between the last debate and the Iowa Caucuses. And he was bludgeoned by the party in that time. I suspect the pattern will repeat.
GhaleonEB said:
Curious what you guys think of the deal Warren and Brown came to in MA regarding 3rd party ads.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...finance-truce/2012/01/23/gIQAYQRVLQ_blog.html


Pretty innovative. Will be interesting to see how they honor it; I expect loopholes and finger pointing to break out quickly. But I applaud the sentiment.

Edit: dammit, DP. Didn't relize I was the last post. :\
Click to expand...
Initially, I misinterpreted "third parties." That would have been an odd arrangement. Still, this is a bit unusual. I doubt it transfers to other races. But I commend the effort. And I reckon the potential backlash from violating the agreement impels compliance.
 
ToxicAdam said:
I think people are forgetting that Gingrich still has 1) a money problem 2) an organizational problem 3) an endorsement problem. These are 3 very real deterrents from a candidate rising above his regional strength and carrying a national ticket.
Click to expand...

Romney has had 5 billion more endorsements than everyone else combined the entire primary. Endorsements don't seem to matter this time.
 
ToxicAdam said:
I think people are forgetting that Gingrich still has 1) a money problem 2) an organizational problem 3) an endorsement problem. These are 3 very real deterrents from a candidate rising above his regional strength and carrying a national ticket.
Click to expand...
I think you're forgetting that the majority of the GOP does not want to vote for Romney.
 
Kusagari said:
Romney has had 5 billion more endorsements than everyone else combined the entire primary. Endorsements don't seem to matter this time.
Click to expand...


Really? He's outraised Gingrich almost 3:1 and has outperformed in states where some said he had no chance (Iowa, SC).


It's certainly not Romney's personality or debate performance that has carried him this far.
 
ToxicAdam said:
Really? He's outraised Gingrich almost 3:1 and has outperformed in states where some said he had no chance (Iowa, SC).


It's certainly not Romney's personality or debate performance that has carried him this far.
Click to expand...

Romney has always been a good fundraiser, was annointed as the presumptive nominee for the last 4 years and overperformed because the field itself is horribly weak. It's hard to say he outperformed in SC anyway since nobody leading into it thought Gingrich would get anywhere near 40%.

I don't see how endorsements caused any of that.
 
So Romney compared Newt to a pinball machine for the way be bounces back & forth on issues.

Really? I'm not so sure that is your best avenue of attack, Mitt.
 
Kusagari said:
Romney has had 5 billion more endorsements than everyone else combined the entire primary. Endorsements don't seem to matter this time.
Click to expand...
We have only had three contests. The benefits of party support are not expected to manifest immediately. Occasionally, elite cues are surpassed by other factors. This is especially true if the pace of endorsements is slow. Romney certainly has more endorsements than his opponents. But the pace of endorsements is slower relative to other cycles. Still, I do not see that trend abating. I am confident Newt is unpalatable to the party. Now, if he loses the nomination, then we may have to reform our knowledge of party politics.
Matthew Gallant said:
I think you're forgetting that the majority of the GOP does not want to vote for Romney.
Click to expand...
Even if that were true, does he need a majority of the GOP to vote for him? McCain won with a plurality of the popular vote.
 
Miami Herald looks at one of the companies where Bain made a 30 million dollar investment and earned 342 million dollars. All Company workers were laid off and the firm went bankrupt.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/18/v-fullstory/2596300/in-miami-story-of-profits-and.html

Bain borrowed heavily to buy the company and closed a factory in Puerto Rico to improve the bottom line. About 400 lost jobs there. Then in 1997, Bain shuttered Dade Behring’s Miami operations, costing another 850 jobs and a $30 million payroll in the community.
Click to expand...

Under Bain’s direction the company squeezed costs through plant consolidations, layoffs and reduced employee benefits. In November 1997, Dade Behring announced it would close two Miami facilities, which employed 850 people, and consolidate operations in Delaware and Germany.
Click to expand...

This is what is the bad part:
Bain borrowed most of the money to acquire Dade and rewarded itself with $100 million in fees for buying and running the company, according to the New York Times. The $242 million payday for Bain came in 1999, when Dade Behring was forced to buy out half its shares, the newspaper reported.
Click to expand...

Hewitt, the former HR director in Miami, said she found the company particularly heartless in the way it handled about a dozen highly skilled workers from Puerto Rico, whom Dade Behring wanted to transfer to Miami after their plant was closed.

She said they fretted about Miami closing as well and that she relayed the concerns to managers, who pointed out the Miami plant was the most-profitable operation in the country and that there was “absolutely no plan to close it.”

Two months later, Bain announced it would close the Miami operation. The workers wanted to return to Puerto Rico. And they wanted the company to waive a relocation-repayment penalty if they left Dade-Behring.

“No,” she said company managers said. “Absolutely not.”
Click to expand...
 
KingK said:
I never understood why they don't just go for the "Obama is a secret atheist" angle instead. That is a lot more believable than him being a Muslim, and Americans are just as afraid of atheists as they are of Muslims.
Click to expand...

That was the lie that some atheist liberals told themselves about Obama. GOP can't copy them! ;)
 
speculawyer said:
So Romney compared Newt to a pinball machine for the way be bounces back & forth on issues.

Really? I'm not so sure that is your best avenue of attack, Mitt.
Click to expand...

Comparing Gingrich to my favorite game makes me like Romney a little less.
 
KingK said:
I never understood why they don't just go for the "Obama is a secret atheist" angle instead. That is a lot more believable than him being a Muslim, and Americans are just as afraid of atheists as they are of Muslims.
Click to expand...
They don't need to. Right now it's easier to pantomime about race and Obama being someone who's never had a job, him being the Affirmative Action President, the Food Stamp President, etc.
 
AlteredBeast said:
Sounds, at least from the Ghaleon run down, that he was just as eager. Guess Brown is always the badguy and Warren is, as (I believe) you said before, a forgone conclusion for the Dem nomination in 2016.

youth...youth...youth...
Click to expand...

Brown seems like a decent guy. If he exemplified the typical Republican, we'd have a real opportunity to get things done.
 
JCreasy said:
Wow, Christie has Palin talkin shit about him, hahahaha



LOL
Click to expand...

Can anyone concieve of a metric by which we could measure Republican division? That is, one where we can tell if the party is more or less divided now than it was 10 years ago, or 20, or 30?

The first and most obvious metric would be how consistently the party votes as a bloc in Congress; if there are more dissenting votes now than there were in 1990, or less, on every Republican-backed bill.

But that doesn't measure or give credence to the popular sentiment; some major Republican figures who are very popular with people but who are not necessarily in Congress. Of the Republicans who have led the polls for the nomination this year, for example (Bachmann, Trump, Cain, Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Perry), only two of those are actual members of Congress (And only three are in government right now at all). Surely there must be a way to gauge if consensus among Republican voters is more or less divided than it was 30 years ago? Because a driving force of the Republican part since Reagan has been a consolidated but very active and very unified base.
 
Taking the long view, it would be as simple as noting the development of a legitimate third party, be it single-issue or multi. The GOP had that with the Tea Party movement years ago, and they've yet to reconcile the most extreme elements of that platform into party. The fractures have grown over the last year (as seen in the House), and likely won't be solved until the party purges either legacy/establishment Republicans or freshman ideologues from the ranks.

Historically I believe that's been the largest indicator of intra-party troubles and divisions.
 
Refrigerator said:
Taking the long view, it would be as simple as noting the development of a legitimate third party, be it single-issue or multi. The GOP had that with the Tea Party movement years ago, and they've yet to reconcile the most extreme elements of that platform into party. The fractures have grown over the last year (as seen in the House), and likely won't be solved until the party purges either legacy/establishment Republicans or freshman ideologues from the ranks.
Click to expand...

I agree, this seems logical.

As an aside on Republican demographics; do we know if they have gotten more or less white in the last 20 years? More or less male?
 
Dax01 said:
I remember some time ago that McCain denounced a similar question on the campaign trailer back in '08. Something about him being a Muslim or a birther issue, IIRC.
Click to expand...

McCain would be a much better president than any of the current GOP candidates. At least the man had the decency to not overtly pander to the "Obama r a dirty muzlum arab" folk.
 
ToxicAdam said:
I think people are forgetting that Gingrich still has 1) a money problem 2) an organizational problem 3) an endorsement problem. These are 3 very real deterrents from a candidate rising above his regional strength and carrying a national ticket.
Click to expand...

The Tea Party doesn't trust the establishment GOP very much so those endorsements won't do much.

Gingrich doesn't need an organization if he keeps up his flogging of Romney in every debate, making Romney look too weak to debate Obama.

Cash is coming for Gingrich now that he's polling so strong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

DCU Batman movie to be written by Christina Hodson (Birds of Prey, The Flash, Batgirl)
2 3
123
489
KyoZz replied
The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue
1
211
Poppinfresh replied
Postal services around the world are suspending deliveries to the US
2 3 4 5
223
3K
Paltheos replied
Crime 101 | Official Trailer 2 | Chris Hemsworth, Halle Berry, Mark Ruffalo & Barry Keoghan
1
112
roosnam1980 replied
  • Poll
Which actor has the better movies and TV: Will Smith or Chris Pratt?
49
931
ResurrectedContrarian replied
Top Bottom