motorfirebox said:
I just want to put this out there. It's been commented on before but it's worth thinking about again, if only to boost the local economy through alcohol sales. Newt Gingrich claiming he's the populist choice against Mitt Romney. The guy who wants to cut the capital gains rate to zero is claiming to be the little guy's choice against the guy who out-Obamacared Obamacare four years before Obamacare. The guy who divorced his cancer-ridden wife for his mistress is being presented as the moral choice over the guy who's been married to the same woman for nearly half a century.
Gingrich was having an affair with his future second ex-wife while his first ex-wife (still his wife at the time!) was in the hospital with cancer. No matter who requested the divorce, Newt Gingrich divorced his cancer-ridden wife for his mistress. And America's two-faced, delusional evangelical population is picking him over the guy who's been married to the same woman for over forty years.
I would also be curious to know, if she was the one who requested it, why did she later contest the divorce? And let's not forget his little money funneling scandal that made him the only Speaker to ever be fined for ethics violations. Even if wife #1 would have been perfectly healthy, carrying on an affair for years and dumping the 1st wife for the Mistress only to do the EXACT SAME THING to Mistress #1/wife #2 with Mistress #2/Wife #3 is just a pattern of awful behavior! And he dares to call himself the moral one.
The Man, the Myth, the Multiple Divorcee said:
"The fact is what you're saying is there cannot be a genuine Catholic hospital," said Gingrich, who converted to Catholicism in 2009. "It will have to be subordinated to a secular government."
As far as I'm aware, this is simply wrong. Any Catholic hospital is completely within its rights to not offer free contraceptives. All it has to do is refuse federal funding.
The Man, the Myth, the Multiple Divorcee said:
"The fact is what you're saying is there cannot be a genuine Catholic hospital," said Gingrich, who converted to Catholicism in 2009. "It will have to be subordinated to a secular government."
As far as I'm aware, this is simply wrong. Any Catholic hospital is completely within its rights to not offer free contraceptives. All it has to do is refuse federal funding.
Isn't this always the case when a religious organization comes up against federal/state laws that go against their beliefs in these sorts of cases?
The Man, the Myth, the Multiple Divorcee said:
"The fact is what you're saying is there cannot be a genuine Catholic hospital," said Gingrich, who converted to Catholicism in 2009. "It will have to be subordinated to a secular government."
As far as I'm aware, this is simply wrong. Any Catholic hospital is completely within its rights to not offer free contraceptives. All it has to do is refuse federal funding.
Isn't this always the case when a religious organization comes up against federal/state laws that go against their beliefs in these sorts of cases?
It depends on what's being done and what the religious interest is. Just speaking at a really basic level of con law, the Federal Gov't has enormous power under the Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause of the 4th and 14th Amendments to create laws that restrict the private ability to discriminate. For instance, a law that prohibited private diners from being whites-only was upheld, on the grounds that much of what they served and used in the form of napkins and utensils were made out of state, and the law was therefore upheld under the Commerce Clause. Similarly, a law that outlawed racial bias in jury selection, even for cases where the state isn't an actor like a tort or an estate dispute, was upheld because empaneling a jury is state-sponsored, and under the DPC's of the 4th and 14th Amendments, the state can't discriminate.
Now there are, of course, complications to that principle, but the basic idea is that the populists Gingrich is catering to hate those decisions. To be fair, they were massive expansions of the federal gov't's ability to pass law. The fact that they were necessary to dig out such viciously entrenched racism is conveniently forgotten. Suffice to say that conservatives have since then tried to carve out exceptions, roll back those decisions and hide their actions under Constitutionally-protected cloaks.
As a result, I don't think Gingrich is serious (well, I don't think he's serious about anything insofar as he's a huckster, but roll with me) about how this will somehow impede critical actions of the church. What this is really about is two things: first, the people who vote for him don't like gays, and second, there are very strong protections in place (rightly so) for the Free Exercise of religion and association. So he plays on that to say that what liberals are infringing isn't the right to engage in private bigotry, no matter how true that actually is. Rather, it's some great charitable action of the church, which riles up the base and gives him a much stronger possible argument when it comes time to argue that his Constitutional rights are being trodden on by those jack-booted liberals.
Three more contests tonight: caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota, and a non-binding "beauty contest primary" (though I strongly object to that terminology given the involvement of Newt Gingrich) in Missouri.
So far, it looks like a killer night for Santorum, pulverizing everyone in Missouri, and up front in Minnesota. As always, all I'm looking for is for these knuckleheads to keep on beating up on each other and this trainwreck to keep going, so I'm having a very entertaining night.
Paul Begala said:
Romney has more money, more national experience, more consultants, more staff. Heck, he even has better hair. His super PAC outspent Santorum's by a 40-to-1 margin. Forty to one. And yet Mitt Romney lost. He lost to a guy who lost his home state by 18 points the last time he was on the ballot there. There's a technical term in political consulting for a performance like that: it's called sucking. If Romney can't beat Rick Santorum, he needs to find another party to run in.
Paul Begala said:
Romney has more money, more national experience, more consultants, more staff. Heck, he even has better hair. His super PAC outspent Santorum's by a 40-to-1 margin. Forty to one. And yet Mitt Romney lost. He lost to a guy who lost his home state by 18 points the last time he was on the ballot there. There's a technical term in political consulting for a performance like that: it's called sucking. If Romney can't beat Rick Santorum, he needs to find another party to run in.
(My emphasis, y'know, for yuks.)
I thought he was running on the "I Have A Fuckton Of Money" Party ticket.
Here's the debate schedule going out until late March (the next one is on Feb 22 in Mesa, AZ).
It's going to be interesting to see how this GOP primary pans out, but if what happened yesterday continues, it's going to be a prolonged spectacle (time to invest in popcorn stock). With Romney seemingly unable to win in the Mid-West, and turnout lower than in the 2008 primaries, I wonder how this is going to translate in the general election. Of course, he's still favored to win (his estimated delegate count total is greater than the shared balance among his opponents), but it's definitely not going well for him among core conservatives.
Of course, now that Santorum has a few feathers stuck in his cap, he may be able to ride some of that momentum and continue to draw some of the steam that momentarily lifted Gingrich. For all of the peccadilloes that make Gingrich or Romney unsavory candidates among the right, Santorum has relatively few (barring his Catholic faith and his name getting smeared around the internet). That may play well for him in the long run as a relatively pure conservative candidate, but unless he can garner some financial support and organization to win in some of the more populated states (Missouri & Ohio for instance), I don't think he will have quite the staying power of his good name. Honestly, I don't think he has much of a chance but I'd still keep a close eye on him.
As far as Gingrich goes, he may still net a few more wins despite his dismal performance in the latest contests, but first, his campaign is in need of some major funding. Big southern states like Georgia and Tennessee (think Huckabee states) could be his bread and butter if he manages to limp along that far, and they could conceivably provide him a lifeline, extending his campaign on past March (a lot of Southern primaries and caucuses are scheduled then). Then again, if he doesn't have much of a showing in the next round, his campaign could fall completely flat, broke, and unable to compete in future races. Finally, it's worth considering that like Santorum, he's a Catholic (converted), which may not play well among evangelical conservatives. But then who does that leave them to turn to ??? Gingrich may be more of the southern homeboy, but he could potentially split the hardcore evangelical vote with Santorum, possibly even handing Romney a few narrow in those states.
Well, I guess I should mention Ron Paul. There I did. Yeah, he's losing, badly. In the end I don't think he'll end up with much more than 15% of the overall primary vote. He may be able to somehow eke out a small army of 300 or so delegates if his backdoor campaigning bears fruit, but that's no where near enough for the nomination. In the end he's just going to go back to Texas, hat in hand... To wait for the convention.
It will be interesting to see what's going to happen, but if this type of race keeps going, Romney is sure going to having a run for his money. It's still early yet, but with only 52.2% of estimated delegate support, Romney's on track to just barely take the nomination by 28 delegates. If it turns out to be less, there could very well be an August surprise coming out of the Tampa convention.
The Man, the Myth, the Multiple Divorcee said:
"The fact is what you're saying is there cannot be a genuine Catholic hospital," said Gingrich, who converted to Catholicism in 2009. "It will have to be subordinated to a secular government."
As far as I'm aware, this is simply wrong. Any Catholic hospital is completely within its rights to not offer free contraceptives. All it has to do is refuse federal funding.
Isn't this always the case when a religious organization comes up against federal/state laws that go against their beliefs in these sorts of cases?
It depends on what's being done and what the religious interest is. Just speaking at a really basic level of con law, the Federal Gov't has enormous power under the Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause of the 4th and 14th Amendments to create laws that restrict the private ability to discriminate. For instance, a law that prohibited private diners from being whites-only was upheld, on the grounds that much of what they served and used in the form of napkins and utensils were made out of state, and the law was therefore upheld under the Commerce Clause. Similarly, a law that outlawed racial bias in jury selection, even for cases where the state isn't an actor like a tort or an estate dispute, was upheld because empaneling a jury is state-sponsored, and under the DPC's of the 4th and 14th Amendments, the state can't discriminate.
Now there are, of course, complications to that principle, but the basic idea is that the populists Gingrich is catering to hate those decisions. To be fair, they were massive expansions of the federal gov't's ability to pass law. The fact that they were necessary to dig out such viciously entrenched racism is conveniently forgotten. Suffice to say that conservatives have since then tried to carve out exceptions, roll back those decisions and hide their actions under Constitutionally-protected cloaks.
As a result, I don't think Gingrich is serious (well, I don't think he's serious about anything insofar as he's a huckster, but roll with me) about how this will somehow impede critical actions of the church. What this is really about is two things: first, the people who vote for him don't like gays, and second, there are very strong protections in place (rightly so) for the Free Exercise of religion and association. So he plays on that to say that what liberals are infringing isn't the right to engage in private bigotry, no matter how true that actually is. Rather, it's some great charitable action of the church, which riles up the base and gives him a much stronger possible argument when it comes time to argue that his Constitutional rights are being trodden on by those jack-booted liberals.
Excuse me, I have some music to delete from my iPod, and a few CDs to throw out.
I wonder if he'd endorse him if he knew Santorum's stance on heavy metal (granted I don't know for sure what his stance is, but based on his stances of everything else I can imagine).
Excuse me, I have some music to delete from my iPod, and a few CDs to throw out.
I wonder if he'd endorse him if he knew Santorum's stance on heavy metal (granted I don't know for sure what his stance is, but based on his stances of everything else I can imagine).
Dave is a born-again Christian since he got sober (an alcoholic finding Jesus? No wai!), so him not having a problem with Santorum's religious stupidity isn't a shock.
Excuse me, I have some music to delete from my iPod, and a few CDs to throw out.
I wonder if he'd endorse him if he knew Santorum's stance on heavy metal (granted I don't know for sure what his stance is, but based on his stances of everything else I can imagine).
Dave is a born-again Christian since he got sober (an alcoholic finding Jesus? No wai!), so him not having a problem with Santorum's religious stupidity isn't a shock.
Yup. Brendan was totally shocked, but he forgot that Mustaine became a super uber-Christian who refuses to sing some of his old songs because of the Satan or something. Not shocking, just hilarious.
Excuse me, I have some music to delete from my iPod, and a few CDs to throw out.
I wonder if he'd endorse him if he knew Santorum's stance on heavy metal (granted I don't know for sure what his stance is, but based on his stances of everything else I can imagine).
Dave is a born-again Christian since he got sober (an alcoholic finding Jesus? No wai!), so him not having a problem with Santorum's religious stupidity isn't a shock.
Yup. Brendan was totally shocked, but he forgot that Mustaine became a super uber-Christian who refuses to sing some of his old songs because of the Satan or something. Not shocking, just hilarious.
I totally forgot that too....don't I look smart haha
Well, at least a conservative candidate finally has an artist/band that won't immediately file a cease and desist order if he uses one of their songs at a campaign rally. Now it's up to Santo to pick one.
Selene
SUICIDEGIRL
Oregon, USA
FEB 06, 2012 02:42 PM