Up for Debate: Romney, Santorum duke it out

Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 11:30pm

What's your reaction to Wednesday night's Republican debate in Arizona — particularly the sparring between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum?

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

82 Comments on this post:

By: Loner on 2/23/12 at 11:23

Most GOP types already believe that Obama is a total failure - an incompetent and bungling fool..... in over his head.....a lot of Indies and Dems would share that opinion, if we get sucked into a war with Iran.

IMO, any POTUS that would allow the US to be sucked into a holy war at the behest of a foreign theocracy deserves to be thrown out of office....Obama included.

By: gdiafante on 2/23/12 at 11:25

I don't believe Paul would be on a ticket either, Loner. I can see the rationale behind Romney doing it, but I think Obama would abandon a fair amount of his base as it would be considered too extreme (return the gold standard, etc).

By: yogiman on 2/23/12 at 11:52

I can't remember the man's name, and I wasn't paying much attention to the news, but it was a "quick" section in the news about the voting machines have already been programmed.

The man was identified as the main one in the voting machines. The man seemed unintentionally to make a boo boo in saying the voting machine had already been set.

The way it was spoken, It wasn't hard to wonder what he was talking about.

Paying closer attention it sure looked like Barry has already won the next election. Did I waste my time voting for Ron Paul the other day?

By: gdiafante on 2/23/12 at 11:55

Yogi, can't you wait until at least after the conventions to start whining about voter fraud?

By: Mike Burch on 2/23/12 at 11:57

Loner,

First, I'm glad you like my epigrams page.

Politics makes strange bedfellows and every election is different. This may be the strangest one yet, as we have the first non-lily-white president facing the "crazies" (people who put their trust in irrational religious beliefs and ignore facts and history).

This "crazies" will never vote for Barack Obama, regardless of who is running against him. So in a general election the real question for the GOP is how to attract the moderates, the liberals, and everyone else who isn't crazy.

The best way for the GOP presidential candidate to pick up the votes of thinking people is to forge an alliance with Ron Paul. That could be worth a lot of swing votes.

So suppose the race is Obama versus Romney and Paul. What can the pro-Israel lobby do? Suddenly they have lost considerable influence, if Romney agrees to support Israel publicly but put pressure on Israel in reality, since that is what Obama is already doing.

The question is whether Romney really believes what he says about Israel, or just says what he has to say to win the crazies over in the primaries. As Reagan and Truman pointed out, being a politician is like being a prostitute. There are only two honest politicians in the race: Santorum (a religion-besotted nutball) and Ron Paul. Everyone else is going to say what the public wants to hear.

But this election may depend on what Ron Paul does. Can he figure out a way to tip the election to someone who will help him achieve some of his main goals for the nation?

I hope his main goal is ending the wars in the MIddle East, and not starting new ones. Perhaps he might offer the presidency to the first candidate who agrees to say one thing in public and do something else behind the scenes.

I wonder what Israel is making of this scenario? Will the Mossad bump off Ron Paul?

I think Romney may be playing a game by appealing to the pro-Israel crazies in the primaries. Once he's the nominee, he knows the crazies will never vote for Obama. So it makes political sense to bring Ron Paul in, in some capacity, for the general election.

Of course I'm just speculating, but I think Paul is helping Romney go after Santorum as part of a two-phase program. The first phase is to keep the crazies on board in the primaries. The second phase, once the votes of the crazies can be counted on in the general election, is to reach out to people capable of rational thought. This means a sea change of sorts. Publicly there will be unconditional

By: bfra on 2/23/12 at 11:59

Yep! Them thar voten mochenes done been set from the highest mountain to the lowest valley, all of the U S of A. Just can't find no honest folks anymore.

By: Loner on 2/23/12 at 11:59

Agreed, Gd. I wonder if Biden will still be on the ticket....a new and charismatic person on Obama's ticket might add needed zest to his campaign? Unlike Cheney, Biden has maintained a very low profile...almost obscure.

Biden will be too old in 2016 to run for prez on his own, IMO, putting a rising Democratic star on the presidential bitch pad, behind Obama, would act to groom a Democratic standard bearer for 2016, when the incumbent is gone and the front seat is up for grabs.

By: Mike Burch on 2/23/12 at 12:00

Loner,

I think President Obama knows that he'll be damned no matter what he does. If he brought world peace, the crazies would say that proves he's the anti-Christ.

By: Mike Burch on 2/23/12 at 12:07

Loner,

The election is starting to look like a baseball game, with the managers making position changes.

Romney picks Ron Paul as his running mate. The wily old coot threatens to turn a bunt into an inside-the-park homerun. Victory seems assured!

But Barack Obama selects Hillary Clinton as his running mate, and with her cannon-like arm, she throws him out at the plate.

Did the GOP make a huge mistake when it started attacking women's rights? Why not bring in HC and lock up the election toot suite, and set the stage for her to become the first female president four years later?

By: gdiafante on 2/23/12 at 12:08

I think President Obama knows that he'll be damned no matter what he does. If he brought world peace, the crazies would say that proves he's the anti-Christ.
.

Very true.

I think the level of anti-Obama rhetoric has become comical. Personally, I think he's a poor leader, he caved far too much to the GOP. If he grew a pair, I think he could be a very effective President, but I don't see that happening.

It's just amusing how most of Obama's ideas are recycled GOP plans from the past 20 years, yet he's a Socialist, Communist, Marxist and every other "ist" you can think of. It really illustrates how far off the map the GOP really are.

By: Loner on 2/23/12 at 12:14

Mike:

So long as RP remains marginalized, the Mossad will not target him...it's not worth the risk. If he should surge, he might have an "accident"...like an accidental magnetic bomb on his vehicle's door....planted by anti-Semitic Iranians, or their evil proxies, of course. The inquiry would be short and orchestrated.

RP has a tiny Super-PAC backing him...the other Supers are bankrolled by a handful of partisan tycoons....once the GOP Super-PACs unite behind a single candidate, all hell is gonna break loose...it's gonna be ugly....the "winner" of the contest will be left with a polarized nation to lead...lots of luck, buddy.

By: Mike Burch on 2/23/12 at 12:30

Or how about this "switch hitter" scenario:

Romney and Paul are pulling ahead, when suddenly a pinch hitter is announced:

Hillary Clinton becomes the presidential candidate, with Barack Obama as her VP. Once HC has served her two terms in office, BO will run for a second term. Thus the Democrats hope to have 16 years of uninterrupted time to undo the damage of the GWB administration.

Just think of how many women would vote Democrat if HC was the presidential candidate! The election might be over before it even started.

By: Loner on 2/23/12 at 12:32

Mike:

HC has announced her plans to retire from politics, no date given however...I believe her...she's no spring chicken...and she is a bit of a polarizing figure, IMO. I think Hillary is soon going to exit stage left.

Again, RP is unacceptable to the War Super-lobby, (Defense, Israel & Energy), he would be a drag on either major party, if he were on their ticket as VP. As a third party choice, RP could garner enough support to once again illustrate how the popular vote for POTUS is absolutely irrelevant....I could see RP getting more popular votes that Ross Perot did and still win zero EC votes.

Checking my crystalline spheres of clairvoyance.....here it is....in a 3-way race between Obama, Santorum and Ron Paul, the popular vote would shake out at approximate 45% for Obama...30% for Santorum.....25% for Paul. In this scenario Obama's EC vote result would be nearly unanimous.

Does anybody else have their crystal balls up and running? Please share.

By: Mike Burch on 2/23/12 at 12:43

I think President Obama is trying to keep us out of a war with Iran. But the neo-cons still have way too much influence. The goal seems to be to bring Iran to the point of collapse or internal rebellion, and hope for the best. But when the US has played similar games in the past, the results have often been horrific.

The CIA-engineered coup of Iran in 1951 let to the brutal reign of the Shah of Iran. The led to the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who of course hated the US for what it had done to Iran. Those hostilities led to the US providing weapons to Saddam Hussein, and the wars we helped fund led to around a million Iranian deaths.

Who knows what will happen next, if the US keeps repeating its errors of the past?

Gingrinch said that he couldn't believe one of our generals said that leaders of Iran are rational. But I wonder how anyone can think that our leaders are rational. A cursory study of our history in the Middle East does make us seem like the Great Satan.

I think Ron Paul is obviously correct. Not only is seeking peace the morally right thing to do, but we can't afford another war. And the methods we have used in the past have never worked. As Albert Einstein said, the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same things expecting different results.

By that definition, our leaders are insane. The only GOP candidate who seems to have kept his sanity is Ron Paul. The others sound like cheerleaders for the Third Reich.

By: gdiafante on 2/23/12 at 12:46

Paul would have us return to the gold standard. I'd define that as insane.

By: Mike Burch on 2/23/12 at 12:55

Loner,

I wonder if HC would turn down a chance to be president now, or in four years? I guess we'll have to see what happens. She's not my favorite politician, but she's better than any of the GOP candidates, although I like Ron Paul on war and foreign policy.

Perhaps Ron Paul won't end up on anyone's ticket, but he could still play kingmaker if he gets something in return. His endorsement could tip the election to the person he endorses. The question is what he would demand and how he could be sure that what he was promised would happen.

If RP knows that he can't possibly win the election, I would expect him to get something important in return for whatever he does. That good be good for the nation, especially if it helps us avoid more unwinnable wars.

By: brrrrk on 2/23/12 at 12:58

gdiafante said

"Paul would have us return to the gold standard. I'd define that as insane."

I agree. To me it seems economically reckless to base our economy on a commodity that is at the control of the world market.

By: Mike Burch on 2/23/12 at 1:00

gdiafante,

"Paul would have us return to the gold standard. I'd define that as insane."

I was thinking about the insanity of war. I certainly don't agree with Ron Paul on any number of domestic issues. If he's not going to be president, all his beliefs don't matter. Where I think he is important is on foreign policy and war. If he is crazy as a loon about everything else, but his ideas about foreign policy and war can save millions of lives and trillions of dollars, I think we should listen to him in an area where he makes sense.

In my perfect world, RP would help either Romney or Obama get elected, and in return get concessions that would help us avoid more wars. I realize this may be wishful thinking, but if I was in RP's shoes and knew I couldn't get elected, I would make avoiding war my main goal.

By: Loner on 2/23/12 at 1:31

Mike Burch:

I read your 9:02 post an went to the link provided:

http://www.thehypertexts.com/peace.htm

I read your proposal.

The idea has merit, IMO; but the UNSC would not agree to sanction Israel for violating the Resolution...Israel has ignored dozens of UN Resolutions, with impunity. The US would veto anything critical of Israel...our UN Reps are political appointees and the Israel lobby has donated generously to the Congress and the WH.

From your own epigram site: "Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.' - Jonathan Swift

By: Loner on 2/23/12 at 1:47

I used a Boometer to gauge the success of the master debaters.

Santorum got 3 boos, when he tried wiggling out of uncomfortable situations; Ron Paul got one boo, when he said that the US needs to get out the war business in the Middle East.

Gingrich and Romney were boo-free, ergo they share the victory, according to my Boometer.

The Boometer - it's a bootiful thing....I think there's an app for dat.

By: dargent7 on 2/23/12 at 2:27

Ron Paul is too old. He's un-electable. Too goofy. Too much like your grandpa. Anyone want him operating on you at 76? I don't.
He wants to pull all the troops out, legalize marijuana, prostitution, balance the budget, and make the tax codes fair.
America won't stand for it.

By: Mike Burch on 2/23/12 at 2:35

Loner,

Time after time the UN has voted in near-complete unity to help the Palestinians. In most cases the ONLY security council veto was that of the US. Thus, we are only one vote from a peace agreement. That vote is the US vote.

Let me repeat: just one vote.

The main idea of my plan is that the US cannot veto a new resolution that ONLY calls for equal rights and justice for all the people in the region. Vetoing such a resolution would in effect be calling the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution null and void.

The new UN resolution I suggest would put any American president in the position of having to admit before the world that the US is the greatest hypocrite in the history of the world if he vetoes the bill. I do not think it is possible for any American president to veto such a bill. He would be the laughingstock of the free world, and so would the United States.

The rest of the UN has been trying to help the Palestinians for decades. If you study the record of the votes online, you can see that the problem is not the UN. The problem is solely our government and its security council veto.

There are many misconceptions in the world because people don't study history and facts. We have been led to believe that the UN is without "teeth." But this is not true when the entire security council agrees to impose sanctions. Look at what economic sanctions did to Iraq. Look at what they are doing to Iran. And they will be even more effective against Israel, because Israel has legitimate elections. As soon as voters start to suffer economically, they will decide that the "right" to steal land from Palestinians and treat them like serfs is not worth the cost, and vote in new leaders more amenable to peace.

The plan makes sense because it is based on facts and logic. The facts are that Israel is a democracy, that elections can bring about changes in its leadership, and that only one UN vote has been stonewalling the peace process. The final fact is that the US cannot veto its own Declaration of Independence and Constitution, which plainly say that all human beings have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and justice in the form of fair laws and courts.

To establish fair laws and courts would cost Israel untold billions of dollars, so I think Israel would quickly grant the Palestinians independence if the resolution passes.

But my problem is getting the idea to someone with the connections to put it in the right hands.

By: govskeptic on 2/23/12 at 3:45

Mike:

You are so right in your 9:12 post about John McCain. That once heroic
dope had very little to say during the entire campaign. President Obama
was never challenged on anything during the entire campaign. On the
eve of the election even the supporting Tom Brokaw in discussion with
Charlie Rose said of Obama "we don't know much about him"!, which was
a true understatement! Those same kid gloves will not be the case this
year, and I'm not speaking of his Middle Name or his race.

We may hear more about the rich liberal foundation ladies that have financed
and introduced him across Chicago and New York in his earliest yrs. His largest
charity contribution of $24,800. to the Trinity Church of Christ, where he heard
nothing, for the tax yr 2007-2008. More about the Harvard Review where he,
unlike predecessors, never wrote a single article, but solicited other left
minded academics to write articles on subjects he suggested to them. It may
be again suggested he explain that SS number he used for yrs of a deceased 17
yr old from Connecticut, a state he had never lived! "Unfair treatment"?

By: Loner on 2/23/12 at 4:23

So, Govseptic, you mean that Barack Hussein Obama is a USURPER??!!

Yogi, you got a convert....let the bromance begin....love is in the air.

By: Rasputin72 on 2/23/12 at 4:23

I think there are a number of posters and commenters that although quite intelligent have been dealt some traumatic dificulties in their lifetimes. It shows quite clearly in that they have a penchant for defending those who should be defended in a charitable way.

These kind of comments are the first step in the process of verifying the validity of welfare. I have great empathy for those who have fallen on hard times through no means of their own. I am a mercenary when comes to the worhless underclass who are subsidized by welfare in their pursuit of murder,robbery, illilegitimate children,welfare fraud,non child support and a myriad of other illgoten crimes against humanity.

Frankly, I am glad that I do not have the responsibility of correcting this garbage dump called people. I think I could dispose of these people and sleep like a baby. Lyndon Johnson made a critical error in thinking that a helping hand would raise this group of people another notch higher. They used the helping hand to create a standard of living without effort and the pro-creation of this society is the fastest growing society in the country.

I salute these people of the street. They are doing what they must do to temporarily survive. In a society that rewards effort and success they would only have the benefit of being seen and not heard. In a democracy where they are the majority they can have three or four generations of food shelter and clothing before they lack of breeding and civilized behavior brings them into the squalor that has been their caste for 2000 years.

By: Loner on 2/23/12 at 4:40

Rasp...you gotta lighten up, man...people are not garbage. You must have missed your 4:20 and are now taking it out on humanity...right? If I could beam you some herb, I would....you gotta chill, baby....we are but hominids on a mudball, going 'round a yellow sun....our earthly mission is simply to have fun....as Mister Natural once said, "It don't mean sheeeit."

By: yogiman on 2/23/12 at 6:43

Loner,

I believe we love Obama in different ways. You seem to love him simply because he is a black man. It surely can't be because of the job he's pretending to do.

I love in because he is the best damn liar and competent actor I have ever witnessed on TV. He's put on a convincing show for the past 3 years by convincing you and your peers he was "elected" to that office. But I believe the truth is finally coming out.

By: Mike Burch on 2/23/12 at 6:44

R72,

I suppose a lot depends on what you believe. If you're a Christian, when the rich young ruler asked Jesus Christ what he needed to do to be perfect, Jesus told him to first give all his wealth to the poor, and only then to return and follow him. The Hebrew prophets, Jesus and the apostles all clearly taught that the rich should help the poor. Personally, I think it''s better to give people education and training so that they can support themselves, so I think welfare should only go to people who are unable to work. Almost everyone can contribute to society, thanks to modern technology.

If you're not a Christian, most other religions teach that compassion and good works are very important. When we see people and animals suffering, we can have compassion for them regardless of the reasons for their suffering.

Perhaps you should visit a homeless shelter or prison and talk to some of the people you consider "worthless" and "garbage." If you knew the things they went through as children, you might change your mind. I like the Native American proverb that suggests, "Don't judge another man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins."

Or as the great Philosopher Plato said, "Be kind, because everyone you meet is fighting some sort of battle."

Or if you really don't have empathy for other people, be kind for your own sake, because one person's unkindness makes the whole world more unkind, and we all share the same planet. When white men were cruel to Native Americans, there were massacres on both sides, and everyone lived in terror. When white men were cruel to black people and enslaved them, the Civil War resulted. That is still the bloodiest war in American history.

Racism makes the world much more dangerous for the racists, not just for their victims. As another wise man once said, "If we don't learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat it."

By: Mike Burch on 2/23/12 at 6:47

Yogi,

The world was troubling when you were the lone voice crying in the wilderness, "Make crooked the paths that were once straight! Prepare ye the way of Intolerance!"

If you start finding disciples willing to believe that Barack Obama is a usurper, I may have to go live on Newt Gingrich's moon colony!

Mike

By: Mike Burch on 2/23/12 at 6:54

gov,

I happen to be an editor, and editors are SUPPOSED to solicit other people to write articles. That's what editors do. They read other people's work, make suggestions about revisions if revisions are necessary, then publish the improved work without taking any credit themselves.

A good editor is a humble person who lets other people have the spotlight. I have helped many writers improve their work and have never tried to take credit myself. Should anyone damn me for acts of grace?

You have paid Barack Obama a huge compliment, by confirming that he didn't use his position to take the spotlight away from other writers!

Mike

By: Mike Burch on 2/23/12 at 7:21

According to Snopes, all the crap about Barack Obama's SSN is just that, crap. The first three digits do not always correspond to a person's state of residence.

Even the attorney who filed the lawsuit questioning Obama's citizenship doesn't support this goofy claim ...

Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama on August 21, 2008 challenging Obama’s lack of “Constitutionally Eligibility” to serve as President of the United States stated that Barack Obama is not using a fraudulent or stolen Social Security Number. He said, “I am repeatedly contacted about Obama’s use of Social Security number xxx-xx-4425 and the word on the Internet that the number in use by Obama was originally assigned to Jean Paul Ludwig born in 1890 in France, who is now deceased. All over the Internet there are articles and posts that Obama stole Mr. Ludwig’s Social Security number and Obama is using Mr. Ludwig’s Social Security number fraudulently. There are also posts all over the Internet that Obama is using a deceased person’s Social Security number. This is NOT true."

But of course Barack Obama is an American citizen, and if he didn't have dark skin and a funny-sounding name, no one would have ever brought the subject up. As Snopes explains here

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp

the rumors about Barack Obama's birth certificate being forged are bogus. He was born in Hawaii, and all children born in Hawaii are American citizens. Even if he wasn't born within the U.S., his mother passes the test of American citizenship, so he is still an American citizen. Where he was born and the citizenship status of his father make no difference.

By: yogiman on 2/23/12 at 8:54

Mike,

May I ask a simple question? What knowledge do you have, that no one else seems to have, that proves Obama is an American citizen and in that office legally?

Being an editor, you should be able to simply edit that "birth certificate" and see all of the errors it shows: Like different numbers, different letters, lettering not in line across the page, and a form of lettering that didn't exist in 1961.

To my knowledge, Snopes has been shown as an Obama supporter from the beginning. But the facts are facts. If Obama was in that office legally he would have proved it the first time the question was raised. Wouldn't you? Do you know of anyone else that would spend thousands of dollars to refuse to show a twenty dollar birth certificate?

Have you read his autobiography? That alone proves he is in the office illegally.

And using his race alone as a point in not raising the issue makes racism alone the problem on the issue.