- 36,416
- 11,199
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
Clooney always does give pretty simple, but very true political perspective
2012 US Pres. Election Thread- Romney wins FL
- 6,494
- 15,650
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
Anyone who has considered these last three years to be succesful does not offer very truthful political views. This country languishes between the rock of little growth, fewer jobs and no opportunity and the hard place of creeping inflation and no return on middle class savings and money leaving this country.
I am blessed to have enough familial wealth to be able to insulate myself on the coast and ride this storm out (in a more modest version of what Mr. Clooney is doing) but I am in touch with the real California, the real America, the masses of people who actually feel the effects of a moribund economy in their own lives. I call the period between 2009 and 2012 the "Obama Blockade" because he has caused a level of misery usually caused by military blockades and diplomatic embargos. He has isolated us from the financial capital and growth and opportunities associaties with and enjoyed by those who are able to more fully participate in a global economy.
When your biggest acomplishments consist of legislation, that you do not want to take effect until after the election, as well as having gays serve openly in the military, you very well could lose this election even in the face of a very flawed Republican field.
Like the great James Carville said in 1992 "it's the Economy, stupid."
- 7,122
- 1,149
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2003
i dont follow these political tabloids.....but does ron paul still have a chance at a republican nomination? or its independent all the way for him?
Nike Jordan
Supporter
- 32,904
- 77,951
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2002
To quote former Louisiana governor Buddy Roemer, "Mitt Romney is the 1% and Newt Gingrich is their lobbyist."
- 17,718
- 7,991
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
I said this before the SC primary this weekend and I'll say it again................
"As far as Ron Paul running to get the Republican Nomination he's wasting his time and the people supporting Ron Paul running for the Republican Nomniation are wasting their time as well. It's time for Ron Paul to pack it up and go home"
"As far as Ron Paul running to get the Republican Nomination he's wasting his time and the people supporting Ron Paul running for the Republican Nomniation are wasting their time as well. It's time for Ron Paul to pack it up and go home"
- 36,416
- 11,199
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
No. Independent... But he indicated he's not sure if he will run as an independent.. But I bet he does
- 152
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
See this is the problem I have with most Republicans.. They fail to see the true problem, Americans just don't feel bad cause of the Economy. It's the growing Wealth Disparity that is happening. The President has focused on the true problem that Americans care for and his policies reflect that. Not one Republican has policies that connect with the American people, Tax cuts for the rich, less regulation we've seen this before. And come Election the President has all the right stances that will put him back in office. You just can't say "hey things suck so vote for us" you actually have to have policies that matter to Americans, and not one Republican other than Ron Paul can Identify with that.
- 5,712
- 1,019
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
When your biggest acomplishments consist of legislation, that you do not want to take effect until after the election, as well as having gays serve openly in the military, you very well could lose this election even in the face of a very flawed Republican field.
Oh but wait... Obama did provide Americans $400 in Working Tax Credit in 2009 and 2010. This year's filing for 2011, everyone and their mamas are looking at $400 less in tax refunds so I think that by itself will piss off a ton of voters. Every tax client I have this year, I am basically telling them Obama didn't provide us this $400 tax credit like in 2009, and 2010... I can already see their faces...
foxdawg2000
Supporter
- 474
- 24
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2011
ha you watched RT on fri didn't you? lol Was actually a fair representation of what each stands for..
- 1,041
- 12
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
Oh but wait... Obama did provide Americans $400 in Working Tax Credit in 2009 and 2010. This year's filing for 2011, everyone and their mamas are looking at $400 less in tax refunds so I think that by itself will piss off a ton of voters. Every tax client I have this year, I am basically telling them Obama didn't provide us this $400 tax credit like in 2009, and 2010... I can already see their faces...
If taxpayers are seriously mad about getting $400 less, they need to be better educated on why they got that money in the first place. It was a temporary economic stimulus plan, and certainly shouldn't be expected every year.
I'm sure the GOP appreciates your campaigning for them.
- 1,988
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2008
Im not liking how Gingrich is labeling himself as the one the media is against, the one who stands up for the "elites", and is anti-establishment.
And theres another debate on tonight. So feel free to hear Romney Santorum and Gingrich ramble and try to attract Florida voters.
But the thing is, Florida lost half of its delegates, and in Virginia and im sure a few other states, Romney and paul are the only ones on the primary ballot. Virginia is only 4 less delegates than Florida. So Paul can catch up to Gingrich come the potentially brokered Republican Convention in August.
And theres another debate on tonight. So feel free to hear Romney Santorum and Gingrich ramble and try to attract Florida voters.
But the thing is, Florida lost half of its delegates, and in Virginia and im sure a few other states, Romney and paul are the only ones on the primary ballot. Virginia is only 4 less delegates than Florida. So Paul can catch up to Gingrich come the potentially brokered Republican Convention in August.
- 5,712
- 1,019
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
If we shouldn't expect it every year then why did Obama get all butt hurt when Republicans didn't want to extend a 2% payroll tax cut which was only for a year? HmmmmmmmmmmOriginally Posted by blondsoccerplyr
If taxpayers are seriously mad about getting $400 less, they need to be better educated on why they got that money in the first place. It was a temporary economic stimulus plan, and certainly shouldn't be expected every year.Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE
It still puzzles me why Obama's Health Care Mandate doesn't start until 2014. A Presidential election and a Congressional election will take effect before the provisions even takes place...so most likely than not the implementation will probably be killed by Republicans by then.
Oh but wait... Obama did provide Americans $400 in Working Tax Credit in 2009 and 2010. This year's filing for 2011, everyone and their mamas are looking at $400 less in tax refunds so I think that by itself will piss off a ton of voters. Every tax client I have this year, I am basically telling them Obama didn't provide us this $400 tax credit like in 2009, and 2010... I can already see their faces...
I'm sure the GOP appreciates your campaigning for them.
Senoj
formerly adidas freak
- 1,696
- 352
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
Ron Paul will be the only reason Obama gets elected. He's gonna split a nice chunk of the GOP vote because the majority of RP supporters aren't going to vote for anyone but Ron.
- 17,718
- 7,991
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
So you think Ron Paul will run as an Independent??
Senoj
formerly adidas freak
- 1,696
- 352
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
Most likely. Even if he doesn't most of his supporters will vote for him by write-in, taking away a bunch of Independent and Democrat votes that would've went to the GOP if he were the nominee.
Republicans keep saying he is unelectable but that is very debatable considering how much independent/democrats and defected Obama voters he pulls in compared to the other candidates.
- 17,697
- 2,714
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2006
Yea, I don't know what the GOP is doing this election year. It's like their sabotaging their own party. I don't doubt that Obama will get another term.
Side topic, in my Constitution class, our professor told us that noone is truly Democratic or Republic in terms of beliefs, I wonder if you all agree, disagree, digress?
Side topic, in my Constitution class, our professor told us that noone is truly Democratic or Republic in terms of beliefs, I wonder if you all agree, disagree, digress?
- 36,416
- 11,199
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
Not President Election related, but might as well post it in here, instead of making 8,000 threads when there is a news story dealing with politics
http://www.huffingtonpost...s-slavery_n_1224157.html
Tea Party Groups In Tennessee Demand Textbooks Overlook U.S. Founder's Slave-Owning History
A little more than a year after the conservative-led state board of education in Texas approved massive changes to its school textbooks to put slavery in a more positive light, a group of Tea Party activists in Tennessee has renewed its push to whitewash school textbooks. The group is seeking to remove references to slavery and mentions of the country's founders being slave owners.
According to reports, Hal Rounds, the Fayette County attorney and spokesman for the group, said during a recent news conference that there has been "an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another."
"The thing we need to focus on about the founders is that, given the social structure of their time, they were revolutionaries who brought liberty into a world where it hadn't existed, to everybody -- not all equally instantly -- and it was their progress that we need to look at," Rounds said, according to The Commercial Appeal.
During the news conference more than two dozen Tea Party activists handed out material that said, "Neglect and outright ill will have distorted the teaching of the history and character of the United States. We seek to compel the teaching of students in Tennessee the truth regarding the history of our nation and the nature of its government."
And that further teaching would also include that "the Constitution created a Republic, not a Democracy."
The group demanded, as they had in January of last year, that Tennessee lawmakers change state laws governing school curricula. The group called for textbook selection criteria to include: "No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership."
The latest push comes a year after the Texas Board of Education approved revisions to its social studies curriculum that would put a conservative twist on history through revised textbooks and teaching standards.
The Texas revisions include the exploration of the positive aspects of American slavery, lifting the stature of Jefferson S. Davis to that of Abraham Lincoln, and amendments to teach the value of the separation of church and state were voted down by the conservative cadre. Among other controversial amendments that have been approved is the study of the "unintended consequences" of affirmative action.
The board approved more than 100 amendments affecting social studies, economics and history classes for Texas's 4.8 million students.
The influence of the amended textbooks will likely reach far beyond the state of Texas. The state is one of the largest purchasers of textbooks, and many other states adopt Texas's books and standards.
The curriculum changes were pushed through by a majority bloc of conservative Republicans on the Texas school board, who have said the changes were made to add balance to what they believe was a left-leaning and already-skewed reflection of American history.
"There is some method to the madness besides vindicating white privilege and making white students feel as though they are superior and privileged and that that it is the natural order of things," Gary Bledsoe, president of the Texas State NAACP, told The Crisis magazine last year about this time. "The agenda being pushed and the ultimate impact intended is to make young people automatically identify with one political party."
A number of groups, including the NAACP, the Texas League of United Latin American Citizens and the Texas Association of Black Personnel in Higher Education have joined forces to beat back the measures, which they said would have a negative impact on minority children.
The groups sought a federal review of the state's public education and have raised claims that the Texas State Board of Education has violated federal civil rights laws. In a formal complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Education, the groups charge that the new curriculum was devised to "discriminate."
The measures went as far as to replace instances of the trans-Atlantic slave trade with "Atlantic triangular trade."
"It is going to be extremely psychologically harmful to African-American young people because they are marginalized in the curriculum," Bledsoe said. "It will require them to be taught things such as the benevolence of slavery and the problems with affirmative action rather than the good and the bad."
"They voted down a motion that requires students to be taught about the terrorism brought about by the Ku Klux Klan and what they did to ethnic and racial minorities, but they turn around and pass a provision that requires the teaching of the violence of the Black Panther Party."
The losers trying to rewrite history
.
http://www.huffingtonpost...s-slavery_n_1224157.html
Tea Party Groups In Tennessee Demand Textbooks Overlook U.S. Founder's Slave-Owning History
A little more than a year after the conservative-led state board of education in Texas approved massive changes to its school textbooks to put slavery in a more positive light, a group of Tea Party activists in Tennessee has renewed its push to whitewash school textbooks. The group is seeking to remove references to slavery and mentions of the country's founders being slave owners.
According to reports, Hal Rounds, the Fayette County attorney and spokesman for the group, said during a recent news conference that there has been "an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another."
"The thing we need to focus on about the founders is that, given the social structure of their time, they were revolutionaries who brought liberty into a world where it hadn't existed, to everybody -- not all equally instantly -- and it was their progress that we need to look at," Rounds said, according to The Commercial Appeal.
During the news conference more than two dozen Tea Party activists handed out material that said, "Neglect and outright ill will have distorted the teaching of the history and character of the United States. We seek to compel the teaching of students in Tennessee the truth regarding the history of our nation and the nature of its government."
And that further teaching would also include that "the Constitution created a Republic, not a Democracy."
The group demanded, as they had in January of last year, that Tennessee lawmakers change state laws governing school curricula. The group called for textbook selection criteria to include: "No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership."
The latest push comes a year after the Texas Board of Education approved revisions to its social studies curriculum that would put a conservative twist on history through revised textbooks and teaching standards.
The Texas revisions include the exploration of the positive aspects of American slavery, lifting the stature of Jefferson S. Davis to that of Abraham Lincoln, and amendments to teach the value of the separation of church and state were voted down by the conservative cadre. Among other controversial amendments that have been approved is the study of the "unintended consequences" of affirmative action.
The board approved more than 100 amendments affecting social studies, economics and history classes for Texas's 4.8 million students.
The influence of the amended textbooks will likely reach far beyond the state of Texas. The state is one of the largest purchasers of textbooks, and many other states adopt Texas's books and standards.
The curriculum changes were pushed through by a majority bloc of conservative Republicans on the Texas school board, who have said the changes were made to add balance to what they believe was a left-leaning and already-skewed reflection of American history.
"There is some method to the madness besides vindicating white privilege and making white students feel as though they are superior and privileged and that that it is the natural order of things," Gary Bledsoe, president of the Texas State NAACP, told The Crisis magazine last year about this time. "The agenda being pushed and the ultimate impact intended is to make young people automatically identify with one political party."
A number of groups, including the NAACP, the Texas League of United Latin American Citizens and the Texas Association of Black Personnel in Higher Education have joined forces to beat back the measures, which they said would have a negative impact on minority children.
The groups sought a federal review of the state's public education and have raised claims that the Texas State Board of Education has violated federal civil rights laws. In a formal complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Education, the groups charge that the new curriculum was devised to "discriminate."
The measures went as far as to replace instances of the trans-Atlantic slave trade with "Atlantic triangular trade."
"It is going to be extremely psychologically harmful to African-American young people because they are marginalized in the curriculum," Bledsoe said. "It will require them to be taught things such as the benevolence of slavery and the problems with affirmative action rather than the good and the bad."
"They voted down a motion that requires students to be taught about the terrorism brought about by the Ku Klux Klan and what they did to ethnic and racial minorities, but they turn around and pass a provision that requires the teaching of the violence of the Black Panther Party."
The losers trying to rewrite history
sillyputty
Banned
- 3,634
- 21
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
This fool admitted to lying.
[h2]Why Evangelicals Don't Care When Rich White Conservatives Defile Marriage[/h2][h5]By Amanda Marcotte, AlterNet
Posted on January 25, 2012, Printed on January 26, 2012
http://www.alternet.org/story/15389...when_rich_white_conservatives_defile_marriage[/h5]
Newt Gingrichâs win in the South Carolina primary looks like it may not be an outlier;�Gingrichâs poll numbers are rising rapidly in Florida, and he has a good chance of beating Romney there as well.�Gingrich is doing well in no small part because he has so much support amongst evangelical Christians; so much so that many evangelical leaders�refused to go along with an attempt to unify the Christian right�behind Santorum.
In South Carolina,�evangelical Christians voted for Gingrich 2-to-1�over boring family man Mitt Romney. For anyone who takes seriously the notion that evangelical Christians actually care about things like family and fidelity, this support for Gingrich is baffling, since he has a history of serial adultery that he barely bothers to disavow. But a closer examination of the situation makes clear whatâs going on: for the Republican base, âfamily valuesâ donât actually matter, but are just a gloss painted over what really motivates them: reactionary rage. They love Gingrich because heâs a flaming ball of rage they can wield against everyone they hate.�
The sexual double standard is the most obvious way the us vs. them mentality works. Thereâs nothing the modern American conservative loves more than to decry our country's supposedly declining sexual morals. Once the Republicans swept state legislatures and the House of Representatives, punishing sexual freedom became their number one priority, which manifested in nearly 1,000 bills restricting reproductive rights in state legislatures and a bill attacking private insurance funding of abortion in the House. Eventually, House Republicans threatened to shut down the federal government in order to defund family planning clinics, basically because theyâre in the business of providing contraception and STD prevention and treatment. All this while the base continues to push abstinence-only and reject gay marriage on the grounds that itâs not âtraditional.â But when it comes to a serial adulterer like Gingrich, he gets a pass. After all, heâs one of theirs, and if youâre in the tribe, you get a lot more leeway.�
Nowhere is this more obvious than in the reaction to Marianne Gingrich sticking her head out, as she periodically does, to remind the world of what a terrible man her ex-husband is. This time she added the juicy detail that Newt basically demanded that he get to have both his wife and his mistress at the same time. It was a reminder that while this flagrant cheating was going on, Gingrich was repeatedly moralizing in public over President Clintonâs adultery. To this day, the GOP base still regards Clinton as some kind of perverted sex maniac. But Gingrich? Well, during the South Carolina debate when Marianneâs interview with ABC was brought up, the audience loudly booed the mere mention of her name. For the Republican base, Gingrich not only gets to cheat, he also gets to flaunt it in his wifeâs face; but a Democrat like Clintonâs more secretive and brief affairs are unforgivable.��
Gingrich doesnât live by the strict sexual rules laid out by conservatives, because those rules are meant for other people. Sex is a weapon being used against all those classes of Americans they donât like: non-white people, gays, non-Christians, liberals, Democrats, people who have to work for a living, poor people, Democratic politicians.�
With rising levels of pious posing amongst Republicans, there has been some half-hearted attempts to pretend that they hold everyone to the same standards, which helped created the spectacle of Gov. Mark Sanfordâs resignation. Gingrich represents a tossing-away of that feigned concern for fairness and a return to what conservatives really love best, a pedal-to-the-metal defense of straight white male privilege, especially that of wealthy white men. Heâs the living id of the Republican Party: a spoiled brat who takes what he wants without apology, and then dresses down perceived inferiors for their supposed lack of morals and work ethic. You could easily imagine him drifting out of Tiffanyâs, having bought wife number three fancy baubles with money generated from�one of his direct mail schemes�only to pause to lecture a homeless vet on how he deserved his fate because he didnât sacrifice enough.�
In the Republican worldview, sex is a luxury item to be reserved for the privileged, and everyone else who indulges deserves whatever horrible fate befalls them. In the world imagined by Gingrich and his fan base, rich people get to say theyâre sorry and run for public office if they have sex out of wedlock; poor people should see their health decline because they have an STD but canât afford to see a doctor to treat it. The wealthy can afford contraception and have all the sex they want, but if Republicans succeed in cutting off family planning subsidies, poor people will go without. If abortion is banned, wealthy women will be able to travel to get abortions or depend on discreet doctors, but the poor will simply be forced to have babies.�
Of course, Republicans know better than anyone that simply giving into their worst instincts and promoting the career of someone like Newt Gingrich tends to turn off the moderates and swing voters they need to win elections. But it seems this year they donât really care. Conservatives seem sick and tired of paying lip service to equality and family values, and instead are just enjoying the ride of cheering for the screw-you-I-got-mine guy. Will they wise up before itâs too late and Gingrich has the nomination? At this point, itâs hard to say.
Amanda Marcotte co-writes the blog�Pandagon. She is the author of�It's a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments.
[h5][emoji]169[/emoji] 2012 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at:�http://www.alternet.org/story/153893/[/h5]
January 25, 2012 5:47 PM
[h1]Rick Santorum: Left uses college for "indoctrination"[/h1]ByBrian Montopoli
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum speaks at the First Baptist Church in Naples, Fla., Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2012.
(Credit: AP)
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Wednesday that "the left" uses universities to indoctrinate young people for the purpose of "holding and maintaining power."
After saying "we've lost, unfortunately, our entertainment industry," Santorum told a Naples, Florida, audience that "we've lost our higher education, that was the first to go a long time ago."
"It's no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to college," said the former Pennsylvania senator. "The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America. And it is indoctrination. If it was the other way around, the ACLU would be out there making sure that there wasn't one penny of government dollars going to colleges and universities, right?"
He continued: "If they taught Judeo-Christian principles in those colleges and universities, they would be stripped of every dollar. If they teach radical secular ideology, they get all the government support that they can possibly give them. Because you know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it."
Santorum went on to encourage his audience not to "give money" to colleges and universities that he said are causing harm to the country.
"I'll bet you there are people in this room who give money to colleges and universities who are undermining the very principles of our country every single day by indoctrinating kids with left-wing ideology," he said. "And you continue to give to these colleges and universities. Let me have a suggestion: Stop it."
Santorum said at the same event that he is leaving the Florida campaign trail this weekend - ahead of the state's January 31 primary - to go home and retrieve his tax returns, so he can release them.
A new CNN/Time/ORC Internationalpollshowed Santorum at 11 percent in the Sunshine State, far behind rivals Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.
With reporting by CBS News/National Journal off-air reporter Lindsey Boerma.
Read more:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...ses-college-for-indoctrination/#ixzz1kajvcZYD
[h2]Why Evangelicals Don't Care When Rich White Conservatives Defile Marriage[/h2][h5]By Amanda Marcotte, AlterNet
Posted on January 25, 2012, Printed on January 26, 2012
http://www.alternet.org/story/15389...when_rich_white_conservatives_defile_marriage[/h5]
Newt Gingrichâs win in the South Carolina primary looks like it may not be an outlier;�Gingrichâs poll numbers are rising rapidly in Florida, and he has a good chance of beating Romney there as well.�Gingrich is doing well in no small part because he has so much support amongst evangelical Christians; so much so that many evangelical leaders�refused to go along with an attempt to unify the Christian right�behind Santorum.
In South Carolina,�evangelical Christians voted for Gingrich 2-to-1�over boring family man Mitt Romney. For anyone who takes seriously the notion that evangelical Christians actually care about things like family and fidelity, this support for Gingrich is baffling, since he has a history of serial adultery that he barely bothers to disavow. But a closer examination of the situation makes clear whatâs going on: for the Republican base, âfamily valuesâ donât actually matter, but are just a gloss painted over what really motivates them: reactionary rage. They love Gingrich because heâs a flaming ball of rage they can wield against everyone they hate.�
The sexual double standard is the most obvious way the us vs. them mentality works. Thereâs nothing the modern American conservative loves more than to decry our country's supposedly declining sexual morals. Once the Republicans swept state legislatures and the House of Representatives, punishing sexual freedom became their number one priority, which manifested in nearly 1,000 bills restricting reproductive rights in state legislatures and a bill attacking private insurance funding of abortion in the House. Eventually, House Republicans threatened to shut down the federal government in order to defund family planning clinics, basically because theyâre in the business of providing contraception and STD prevention and treatment. All this while the base continues to push abstinence-only and reject gay marriage on the grounds that itâs not âtraditional.â But when it comes to a serial adulterer like Gingrich, he gets a pass. After all, heâs one of theirs, and if youâre in the tribe, you get a lot more leeway.�
Nowhere is this more obvious than in the reaction to Marianne Gingrich sticking her head out, as she periodically does, to remind the world of what a terrible man her ex-husband is. This time she added the juicy detail that Newt basically demanded that he get to have both his wife and his mistress at the same time. It was a reminder that while this flagrant cheating was going on, Gingrich was repeatedly moralizing in public over President Clintonâs adultery. To this day, the GOP base still regards Clinton as some kind of perverted sex maniac. But Gingrich? Well, during the South Carolina debate when Marianneâs interview with ABC was brought up, the audience loudly booed the mere mention of her name. For the Republican base, Gingrich not only gets to cheat, he also gets to flaunt it in his wifeâs face; but a Democrat like Clintonâs more secretive and brief affairs are unforgivable.��
Gingrich doesnât live by the strict sexual rules laid out by conservatives, because those rules are meant for other people. Sex is a weapon being used against all those classes of Americans they donât like: non-white people, gays, non-Christians, liberals, Democrats, people who have to work for a living, poor people, Democratic politicians.�
With rising levels of pious posing amongst Republicans, there has been some half-hearted attempts to pretend that they hold everyone to the same standards, which helped created the spectacle of Gov. Mark Sanfordâs resignation. Gingrich represents a tossing-away of that feigned concern for fairness and a return to what conservatives really love best, a pedal-to-the-metal defense of straight white male privilege, especially that of wealthy white men. Heâs the living id of the Republican Party: a spoiled brat who takes what he wants without apology, and then dresses down perceived inferiors for their supposed lack of morals and work ethic. You could easily imagine him drifting out of Tiffanyâs, having bought wife number three fancy baubles with money generated from�one of his direct mail schemes�only to pause to lecture a homeless vet on how he deserved his fate because he didnât sacrifice enough.�
In the Republican worldview, sex is a luxury item to be reserved for the privileged, and everyone else who indulges deserves whatever horrible fate befalls them. In the world imagined by Gingrich and his fan base, rich people get to say theyâre sorry and run for public office if they have sex out of wedlock; poor people should see their health decline because they have an STD but canât afford to see a doctor to treat it. The wealthy can afford contraception and have all the sex they want, but if Republicans succeed in cutting off family planning subsidies, poor people will go without. If abortion is banned, wealthy women will be able to travel to get abortions or depend on discreet doctors, but the poor will simply be forced to have babies.�
Of course, Republicans know better than anyone that simply giving into their worst instincts and promoting the career of someone like Newt Gingrich tends to turn off the moderates and swing voters they need to win elections. But it seems this year they donât really care. Conservatives seem sick and tired of paying lip service to equality and family values, and instead are just enjoying the ride of cheering for the screw-you-I-got-mine guy. Will they wise up before itâs too late and Gingrich has the nomination? At this point, itâs hard to say.
Amanda Marcotte co-writes the blog�Pandagon. She is the author of�It's a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments.
[h5][emoji]169[/emoji] 2012 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at:�http://www.alternet.org/story/153893/[/h5]
January 25, 2012 5:47 PM
[h1]Rick Santorum: Left uses college for "indoctrination"[/h1]ByBrian Montopoli
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum speaks at the First Baptist Church in Naples, Fla., Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2012.
(Credit: AP)
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Wednesday that "the left" uses universities to indoctrinate young people for the purpose of "holding and maintaining power."
After saying "we've lost, unfortunately, our entertainment industry," Santorum told a Naples, Florida, audience that "we've lost our higher education, that was the first to go a long time ago."
"It's no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to college," said the former Pennsylvania senator. "The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America. And it is indoctrination. If it was the other way around, the ACLU would be out there making sure that there wasn't one penny of government dollars going to colleges and universities, right?"
He continued: "If they taught Judeo-Christian principles in those colleges and universities, they would be stripped of every dollar. If they teach radical secular ideology, they get all the government support that they can possibly give them. Because you know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it."
Santorum went on to encourage his audience not to "give money" to colleges and universities that he said are causing harm to the country.
"I'll bet you there are people in this room who give money to colleges and universities who are undermining the very principles of our country every single day by indoctrinating kids with left-wing ideology," he said. "And you continue to give to these colleges and universities. Let me have a suggestion: Stop it."
Santorum said at the same event that he is leaving the Florida campaign trail this weekend - ahead of the state's January 31 primary - to go home and retrieve his tax returns, so he can release them.
A new CNN/Time/ORC Internationalpollshowed Santorum at 11 percent in the Sunshine State, far behind rivals Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.
With reporting by CBS News/National Journal off-air reporter Lindsey Boerma.
Read more:http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...ses-college-for-indoctrination/#ixzz1kajvcZYD
- 2,270
- 2,702
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
Ron Paul is definitely unelectable. None of the GOP candidates this year are going to be able to pull a significant number of swing voters or Obama defectors. Paul may be doing the best in this department thus far but that's due to voters' relative unfamiliarity with him combined with the places that have already held primaries and caucuses. If Ron Paul were to ever really have the spotlight shone on him, his ideologies, and his history, the voting public would not be nearly as kind as it has to this point.
He's benefited from the fact that the two major players in the GOP race right now, Romney and Gingrich, both have severe political flaws. Romney puts his foot in his mouth way too often, is seen as the wealthy "Wall Street" candidate, is Mormon, and regularly comes off as extremely arrogant and condescending. Gingrich is a world-class hypocrite, has had a very tumultuous political career in which he has alienated many fellow-Republicans, a horrible personal history, and has a penchant for lying and then being exposed.
People don't know as much about Paul and right now he's like the "intriguing" or "trendy" GOP candidate. If he were to receive the same scrutiny as a real contender, that would end quickly. The GOP understands this and this is a big reason that they don't want him as their candidate (aside from a few of his policies being irreconcilable with GOP interests).
- 17,718
- 7,991
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
Ron Paul is definitely unelectable. None of the GOP candidates this year are going to be able to pull a significant number of swing voters or Obama defectors. Paul may be doing the best in this department thus far but that's due to voters' relative unfamiliarity with him combined with the places that have already held primaries and caucuses. If Ron Paul were to ever really have the spotlight shone on him, his ideologies, and his history, the voting public would not be nearly as kind as it has to this point.
100% Truth. Like I said before, Ron Paul needs to do the right thing right now which is to pack it up and go home. He's wasting his time and the time of the few people that support him. A Ron Paul support room should and mostly will always look like this..............
- 1,422
- 548
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
Romney earned his money and it's an issue. Kerry @*$!%+ his way into considerably more money and it was never once mentioned.
- 2,350
- 270
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2001
Ron Paul is the only republican candidate with a chance (very small chance, but a chance) to beat Obama - but he should just pack it up and go home? LOL.
Regardless, it's 4 more years of Obama.
Regardless, it's 4 more years of Obama.
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
He could. He won't run a 3rd Party. It's pointless for Santorum and Gingrich to even be in a primary considering they aren't even in on all the State's ballots for theprimaries, therefore it is impossible for them to win the nomination. Paul and Romney are the only ones on all 50 States.
Santorum will drop out after FL, Gingrich is only around because of the Zionist Billionaire funding him, other than that he has no organization or money.
RON PAUL WILL NOT RUN THIRD PARTY. He's setting the stage for Rand, if he runs Third Party, Rand will have no chance for the same reason Liberals hate Ralph Nader for what happened in 2000.
- 1,996
- 86
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
100% Truth. Like I said before, Ron Paul needs to do the right thing right now which is to pack it up and go home. He's wasting his time and the time of the few people that support him. A Ron Paul support roomshould and mostly will always look like this..............
Yeah this looks similar to that room...
As for a third party run, I doubt he would do that. Rand would be in a tough spot not voting for his dad or wasting his vote.
Senoj
formerly adidas freak
- 1,696
- 352
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
100% Truth. Like I said before, Ron Paul needs to do the right thing right now which is to pack it up and go home. He's wasting his time and the time of the few people that support him. A Ron Paul support room should and mostly will always look like this..............
Stop talking out of your !@# son. You're making yourself look like a fool who has no idea what he's talking about.
Voters unfamiliarity with him? Son, when he was in first place in Iowa polls for 2-3 weeks STRAIGHT the ONLY thing the media was talking about was those newsletters. I'm pretty sure people are "familiar" with him by now.