Objective review of Republican candidates for President

[drogulus]

     Romney looks better all the time. Soon even Republicans will realize that the desperate search to find an acceptable bigoted extremist is a hopeless task. Santorum has the bigoted extremist part covered. Now, about acceptability....how will the independent voters who decide elections react when they hear all the things Santorum has said over the years? He'll make Donald Trump look like Pericles.

     I think I will enjoy this election if Santorum is on the ticket. Yes, it will be OK, I think.

[Karl Henning]

Romney belatedly lost Iowa to Santorum . . . and now:

Will Ron Paul win Maine caucuses after all?

[Karl Henning]

Je-je-je-je!

But we know what it's like to get on the wrong side of the Ron Paul forces – the e-mails cause all your mobile devices to melt.

[Lethevich]

As this has kind of become the US politics thread:

House Republicans question Obama on possible cuts in nuclear arsenal

This seems to be more evidence at how irrational Obama opposition has become. Reducing the stockpile and the large costs of maintaining such an unneccessary ability to kill multiple earths would save a lot of money and mean that more efficient (and less increasingly degrading) systems could be prioritised. Experts have been mentioning this for years (I recall some news interviews about it a long time ago), and yet in a Soviet bloc "quantity over quality" kind of thought, the knee-jerk reaction is to oppose, because clearly Obama is trying to get America killed by weakening its 'defences'

[Todd]

This seems to be more evidence at how irrational Obama opposition has become.

I'm not sure it's irrational at all.  Maintaining a large nuclear arsenal provides high paying jobs in a variety of districts, as well as acting as a strategic deterrent.  Cuts will come.  It's a matter of how much.  The goal of a nuclear weapon free world sounds very, very nice.  Lovely, in fact.  I'd rather the US maintain a strategic arsenal capable of delivering a substantial enough second strike capability to act as an appropriate deterrent.  I don't know what number of weapons is needed to achieve that.  Perhaps 300-400 will suffice.  The article does not make that clear.  One word of special interest is "deployed."  I'm not sufficiently up on nuclear parlance and arms treaties, but that seems different than total number of warheads available.

[kishnevi]

As this has kind of become the US politics thread:

House Republicans question Obama on possible cuts in nuclear arsenal

This seems to be more evidence at how irrational Obama opposition has become. Reducing the stockpile and the large costs of maintaining such an unneccessary ability to kill multiple earths would save a lot of money and mean that more efficient (and less increasingly degrading) systems could be prioritised. Experts have been mentioning this for years (I recall some news interviews about it a long time ago), and yet in a Soviet bloc "quantity over quality" kind of thought, the knee-jerk reaction is to oppose, because clearly Obama is trying to get America killed by weakening its 'defences'

It's not irrational--it's posturing for political benefit.

To those who view the question without political lenses, of course it seems irrational.  But much of what the GOP does would seem irrational when viewed that way.  And to be fair, much of what the Democrats do, too.

Mind you,  this is all in response to a directive from Obama to the military to give him detailed info on what would be involved in reducing our nuclear forces to certain levels (of which 300 is merely the lowest, but it ranges up to 1000 or more) and what US military capabilities would be if such reductions taken place. 

IOW, he's not even decided to reduce our available forces by a single weapon, much less cut them to 300. 

[drogulus]

It's not irrational--it's posturing for political benefit.

To those who view the question without political lenses, of course it seems irrational.  But much of what the GOP does would seem irrational when viewed that way.  And to be fair, much of what the Democrats do, too.

Mind you,  this is all in response to a directive from Obama to the military to give him detailed info on what would be involved in reducing our nuclear forces to certain levels (of which 300 is merely the lowest, but it ranges up to 1000 or more) and what US military capabilities would be if such reductions taken place. 

IOW, he's not even decided to reduce our available forces by a single weapon, much less cut them to 300. 

      This is small ball. The arsenal isn't going to change much and the effect on deterrence will be nil either way. I'm not one of those who see a nuclear free world as a real as opposed to a sentimental goal. The danger of nukes depends on who has them. We used them when they were new and in a world war. Today they are more likely to be used by a country beset by suicidal and messianic dreams, which means it would be good for another country that doesn't fit that profile to have them, too, to make it less likely that the fanatics will actually use them instead of strut on the world stage and intimidate their neighbors. And I think it's likely that Iran and Pakistan will be deterred, though not certain. That's good enough for me.

      Let's be objective, because it's fun. Has Santorum underestimated the Satan vote?

[Shrunk]

I keep figuring that the fact that Santorum has so much as a remote chance of winning this thing is only because all sane Republicans have become so disenchanted with the campaign that they are not even bothering to vote anymore, leaving the race to be decided solely by the certified wingnuts.  I have no evidence upon which to base that, just my at-time-irrational hope for the future of our species.

[drogulus]

I keep figuring that the fact that Santorum has so much as a remote chance of winning this thing is only because all sane Republicans have become so disenchanted with the campaign that they are not even bothering to vote anymore, leaving the race to be decided solely by the certified wingnuts.  I have no evidence upon which to base that, just my at-time-irrational hope for the future of our species.

     Yes, there's an element of that, but it's also generally true that the activists dominate the primaries in both parties, and they tend to be on the wings rather than the center. The party that succumbs to this process distortion is usually punished in the general election (Goldwater 1964, McGovern 1972). This is the argument for Romney.

[eyeresist]

Let's make fun of Rick some more:

''President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob,'' the former Pennsylvania senator said. ''There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor to try to indoctrinate them. Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image.''

Because obviously the good, decent, hard working men and women of America will be instantly corrupted if exposed to an opinion not vetted by Fox.

Also, from Wikipedia:

Santorum attended Pennsylvania State University for his undergraduate studies, serving as chairman of the university's College Republicans chapter and graduating with a Bachelor of Arts with honors in political science in 1980. He then completed a one-year Master of Business Administration program at the University of Pittsburgh's Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business, graduating in 1981.

In 1986, Santorum received a law degree (JD) with honors from the Dickinson School of Law.

Mr Santorum said he disagreed with the ''absolute separation'' between church and state outlined by Kennedy. He said reading the speech made him want to ''throw up''.

''The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country,'' he said.

First of all, "the church" - WHICH church exactly, among the many creeds and fila, do you want to see involved in the "operation of the state"? Second, that phrase "operation of the state" has an alarmingly technocratic sound - will there be a Department of the Faith, with offices in each state? Will they set standards, and monitor for breaches? Will they get to wear cool black leather coats like the Gestapo used to wear?

And maybe I'm overly sensitive, but saying that a former president's speech made you want to throw up does not seem very "presidential".


Quotes are from this article, which was extracted from reports in the Washington Post.

[eyeresist]

Addendum:

More fun facts about Rick Santorum:

Santorum introduced the National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005 which aimed to prohibit the National Weather Service from releasing weather data to the public without charge where private-sector entities perform the same function commercially.
Because why should the public have access to information their tax dollars paid for?

On the libertarian right: "they have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. ... we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues.... Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can't go it alone..."
BUT global warming is a "beautifully concocted scheme" by the political left and "an excuse for more government control of your life."
Make up your mind, Rick. Goverment good? Government bad?

[ibanezmonster]

Because obviously the good, decent, hard working men and women of America will be instantly corrupted if exposed to an opinion not vetted by Fox.

I heard about this from my college composition teacher. I don't understand... is this guy's dream to turn America into an African country, where the few rich politicians have control over everything, and the masses are dumbed down? I think that was ultimately the intention with SOPA, because it seems like there is some movement among extreme conservatives who want to bring the country into the Middle Ages because they simply want more power.

Take away higher education and take away the internet. Dumb down the masses and you have control.

[kishnevi]

I heard about this from my college composition teacher. I don't understand... is this guy's dream to turn America into an African country, where the few rich politicians have control over everything, and the masses are dumbed down? I think that was ultimately the intention with SOPA, because it seems like there is some movement among extreme conservatives who want to bring the country into the Middle Ages because they simply want more power.

Take away higher education and take away the internet. Dumb down the masses and you have control.

Not exactly.  It's rooted in the belief that teachers at almost all levels of education are overwhelmingly radical leftiet in their political beliefs, and those beliefs have corrupted everything they teach--and therefore studying on one's own can yield better results.  They don't think of it as dumbing down--they think of it as protecting one's mind until they can purge the education profession.    The same sort of people seem to think more highly of doctors who go into medicine because they expect to get paid well than they do of doctors who go into medicine because, well, they want to help sick people..   I've had Republicans accuse me of spreading Marxist propaganda when I point out that the Bible isn't exactly enthusiastic about  free market capitalism, and who apparently think that the Bible's demand for charity and proper treatment of the poor is merely a Leftist excuse for governmental control.   They're Christians., most of them,  too--but apparently they've managed to purge their idea of Christianity of anything that smacks of what used to be called "the social gospel". 

[eyeresist]

Not exactly.  It's rooted in the belief that teachers at almost all levels of education are overwhelmingly radical leftist in their political beliefs, and those beliefs have corrupted everything they teach--and therefore studying on one's own can yield better results.  They don't think of it as dumbing down--they think of it as protecting one's mind until they can purge the education profession.

Hence "home schooling", which seems to be a sort of national joke in the US.

[Scion7]

Where's COLOSSUS when we really need it?   

[ibanezmonster]

Um... for most subjects you don't need a class or a teacher. People just don't know how to teach themselves a subject. Learning in a classroom is an extremely slow procession in comparison to teaching yourself.

[Todd]

Learning in a classroom is an extremely slow procession in comparison to teaching yourself.

This may or may not be the case for eight year olds.

[Shrunk]

Hence "home schooling", which seems to be a sort of national joke in the US.

On that subject:

Rick Santorum's home-school hokum

As various media outlets from Mother Jones to the Washington Post have reminded us in recent weeks, Santorum's record as a home-schooler is ambiguous at the very least, and arguably hypocritical. From 2001 through at least 2004, when Santorum was serving in the Senate and living full-time in Loudoun County, Va., five of his children were enrolled in an online charter school based in Pennsylvania — a public school, albeit an unusual one — with computers, curricula and other educational services provided at taxpayer expense. According to the Penn Hills Progress, a newspaper in Santorum's suburban Pittsburgh hometown that broke the story at the time, the local school district had spent approximately $100,000 educating the senator's so-called home-schooled children, although they lived neither in the district nor in the state....

When Penn Hills tried to bill Santorum for $72,000 that the state had withheld from the local education budget to cover the senator's kids' online tuition, he refused to pay. In the end, the Pennsylvania department of education was forced to refund most of that money to the local district. In other words, the Santorums presented themselves to the world as home-schoolers for at least three years, while Pennsylvania taxpayers picked up the bill for their kids' education — and they actually lived in a different state. For a private citizen, this would have been an embarrassing ethical lapse, but somewhat short of criminal misconduct. For a politician whose reputation rests upon issues of character and integrity, it's considerably more damning....  From here, Rick Santorum does not look like an independent-minded man of principle, however misguided — and still less like a model home-school parent. He looks like another angry white guy who wants to cut taxes and slash government and declare his John Wayne independence from society, but is still delighted to spend other people's money on his own kids.

http://politics.salon.com/2012/02/26/rick_santorums_home_school_hokum/

[drogulus]

     But Santorum isn't unique. Conservative spongery is, dare I say, intrinsic to the outlook. Just look at the liberal states, all of them providers of the revenue to the Red State welfare queens. It isn't just that liberal states are richer (often they are but not always), it's that they actually proceed on the assumption that "with great wealth comes great responsibility". So the liberal state supports it's own poor and the poor of the Red States that follow a different mandate. In essence, we help them, they can never face up to that crucial fact, and they will never forgive us.
     

[Florestan]

Um... for most subjects you don't need a class or a teacher. People just don't know how to teach themselves a subject.

That's exactly why they need classes and teachers, especially when they are very young, as Todd correctly pointed out.

May I ask you to list five subjects you taught yourself to proficiency starting from scratch?