If only they'd popped out another 9 in time to vote!

They are Arkansans, though. Would not have been able to vote in Iowa....

Doctor Fate wrote:I think Santorum will be a LOT harder to hit. Gingrich was easy. Perry took care of himself. Santorum is likeable, has a great family, is a social conservative, and a hawk. So far, I've only seen him get hit for pork barrel spending. I don't think that will damage him much.

I was rereading the thread and this struck me as a bit odd.

If one of the main political issues in the USA is the deficit and debt, and if the Republicans are running on the idea that spending too much is very bad, why is it not likely to be a big issue if a candidate has a history of supporting pork?

Seems to me that it shows a history of helping create the very debt and deficit that the party regards as one of the most pressing concerns of the Union.

Of course, more will come out as well:

his record is rich in polarizing policy positions and questionable associations that support the charge of "Washington insider."

For example, his million-dollar-plus 2010 income included payments from a lobbying firm, an energy company engaged in controversial "hydrofracking" and a hospital conglomerate that was sued for allegedly defrauding the federal government.

and

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal government watchdog group, named Santorum among three "most corrupt" senators in 2005 and 2006, accusing him of "using his position as a member of Congress to financially benefit those who have made contributions to his campaign committee and political action committee."

and

The Santorums are also proud homeschoolers. They moved to a Virginia suburb of Washington DC as soon as he was elected to the Senate in 1995, but still cost their Pennsylvania school district more than $100,000 because their children were enrolled in an online charter school based there from 2001-2005.

The district was required to pay the tuition of students who attended this type of school via the Internet. The state of Pennsylvania eventually covered some of these education costs. Santorum's defense was that he still owned a house in the district and paid property taxes. But this issue, too, became a factor in his ill-fated 2006 reelection campaign.

In that race, against Democrat Bob Casey, Jr., the attacks were coming so fast and furious that Santorum decided to issue a pamphlet, titled "50 Things You May Not Know About Rick Santorum." (link.reuters.com/gyg85s)

In an effort to soften his image as a hard-line social conservative, it touted Santorum's efforts to raise the minimum wage, expand stem-cell research, battle AIDS, guarantee Social Security benefits, protect Food Stamps, and increase funding for the Head Start preschool program. It also advocated passing tough new lobbying laws

I think that his rivals for the candidacy will have a smorgasbord of options for attack, even after the 'bridge to nowhere' that Perry's ad went after.

bbauska wrote:They are Arkansans, though. Would not have been able to vote in Iowa....

I think you underestimate the power of prayer among the Quiverfulls.

Odd quote from Mr Duggar though: "You're not going to find the perfect candidate unless it's Jesus Christ"

Yeah, that Jesus was famous for his political career and seeking of high office in the secular world.

You could arguably say that with his record of providing free food and healthcare for the poor, his hostility to the financial services industry, his pacifist views on foreign affairs and his espousal of a clear distinction between church and state (render unto Caesar...), Jesus Christ wouldn't stand a chance in the Republican primaries.

Sassenach wrote:You could arguably say that with his record of providing free food and healthcare for the poor, his hostility to the financial services industry, his pacifist views on foreign affairs and his espousal of a clear distinction between church and state (render unto Caesar...), Jesus Christ wouldn't stand a chance in the Republican primaries.

You could argue that, but, given His clear distinction between church and state, and given His clear statement that He had a church that He would build, why would He be in the primary?

Your absurd statement has been reduced to rubble without me even mentioning He never said government was obligated to provide anything to the poor.

Oh don't be so touchy Steve, it was a joke.

As a guy who lives in the Commonwealth Santorum was Senator in, I can tell you he is going to be eminently easier to hit then the others. Besides the fact, with Perry staying in the race until South Carolina, Santorum doesn't have the money or infrastructure to maintain his status as a top tier candidate. The same think that happened to Gingrinch in Iowa will happen to Santorum in SC. Perry has money so he and Romney will hit him hard with negative campaign ads. Just like Gingrinch in Iowa, Santorum will not have the money to respond to these attacks to much the same results.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:They are Arkansans, though. Would not have been able to vote in Iowa....

I think you underestimate the power of prayer among the Quiverfulls.

Odd quote from Mr Duggar though: "You're not going to find the perfect candidate unless it's Jesus Christ"

Yeah, that Jesus was famous for his political career and seeking of high office in the secular world.

I guess I would agree with Mr. Duggar. EVERY human being (including the President) is fallible. IMHO, Jesus is not fallible. Ergo, that would make him a better candidate.

Yes, Sass, I got your tongue in cheek humor. I don't think Christ would make it in the Democratic primary either.

Also a very different factor at play is the proportional delegates. This is first time in recent history. If Romney doesn't start really breaking out soon there'll be a brokered convention with Paul at the table. You could say the Tea Party poisoned the well for the establishment by getting that change made.

Neal Anderth wrote:Also a very different factor at play is the proportional delegates. This is first time in recent history. If Romney doesn't start really breaking out soon there'll be a brokered convention with Paul at the table. You could say the Tea Party poisoned the well for the establishment by getting that change made.

I would love a brokered convention. I just don't think it will happen. As far as I know, no Republican has ever won Iowa and NH, then failed to be the nominee.

Even if it were a brokered convention, all that Paul would get is some changes to the platform, which is not too meaningful ... Romney would just give the VP nod to Santorum or someone similar to solve the deadlock.

Ray Jay wrote:Even if it were a brokered convention, all that Paul would get is some changes to the platform, which is not too meaningful ... Romney would just give the VP nod to Santorum or someone similar to solve the deadlock.

Well, of course, I am hoping a brokered convention would lead to someone else, not Paul or Romney. I still think Jeb Bush would be a rock star, if not for his last name. Get Columba and George P. on the trail and watch what happens.

bbauska wrote:Yes, Sass, I got your tongue in cheek humor. I don't think Christ would make it in the Democratic primary either.

Well he's not eligible anyway. When he lived he never made it to 35 and he was clearly not a natural born citizen. No way he'd be able to quell Birtherism with a valid certificate.

Besides, he had long hair, never married or had kids (when's the last time a President was a bachelor?), associated with loose women and all kinds of rabble (and he roused a rabble or two). No chance of a major party ticket.

Neal Anderth wrote:Also a very different factor at play is the proportional delegates. This is first time in recent history. If Romney doesn't start really breaking out soon there'll be a brokered convention with Paul at the table. You could say the Tea Party poisoned the well for the establishment by getting that change made.

This is what I was alluding to - if there are enough candidates who remain strong, Romney may get a plurality of delegates, but a majority could elude him.

However, there are 'superdelegates' (who are not electorally mandated to a candidate and are likely to be Party guys, so perhaps more likely to pull for the mainstream choice), and every candidate with delegates who pulls out leaves some people in play for everyone else.

One danger for the Republicans in a brokered convention is that they appear divided to the electorate at large. And at least undecided about the direction that they are in. They have one easy platform: Get Obama out. But people will also want to know what he's to be replaced with. If Romney has to make a lot of concessions to get through, will that hurt him? If another candidate comes out who wasn't put before people at Primaries, will that lead to questions of mandate?

And if Ron Paul and his loyal tribe of supporters get frozen out by an alliance between the party machine and the paleocons, will they swing behind a candidate?

Careful what you wish for...

danivon wrote:when's the last time a President was a bachelor

The one and only President to never marry was James Buchanan elected 1856 though Grover Cleveland was a bachelor when he ran for President (1884) he married while in office.

danivon wrote:However, there are 'superdelegates' (who are not electorally mandated to a candidate and are likely to be Party guys, so perhaps more likely to pull for the mainstream choice), and every candidate with delegates who pulls out leaves some people in play for everyone else.

The Republican Party doesn't really do the super delegate thing. Of the 2,000+ delegates to the RNC only about about 450 are unpledged delegates and of those only about 120 are automatic based on party membership/position. The rest are elected.